Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Terrorist" Lyrics Land High Schooler In Jail

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the now-for-aesthetic-offenses-maybe dept.

Censorship 573

An anonymous reader writes "A Methusen, Mass. high schooler, who goes by the rapper name 'Cammy Dee' has been arrested after posting lyrics that police felt were 'communicating terrorist threats.' This wouldn't be the first time rap lyrics were investigated, but if formally charged for 'communicating terrorist threats' this would a set a chilling low bar for terrorist investigations."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In America, we are safe. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638373)

Really, if the police have time enough to deal with this, then clearly all the more important crimes have been resolved.

NRA sedition (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638415)

The very same day, the head of the NRA said that all americans should be trained in automatic weapons for the eventual day when we have to take over our government.

That was actually a multi-billion dollar statement in terms of cost to the US.

Why? because now all those people who hold security positions and had to sign that they had never belonged to an organization that advocated the violent overthorow of the US govt will have to be re-investigated if they continue to belong to the NRA.

It's basically sedition.

Re:NRA sedition (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638473)

Rap is for niggers. I say let the little shit rot in prison. There is NOTHING in the constitution that says niggers get rights.

Re: NRA sedition (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638509)

Although, you are obviously a troll, this is technically true according to the first iteration of the Constitution.

Re: NRA sedition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638649)

no, it isn't

Re: NRA sedition (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638859)

Rights get into the Constitution with the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments). Through this point, there is no mention of race, nor of sex, for that matter. There is, obviously, mention of slavery, though not in the context of rights or race.

Given the full context of the time, the issues were dealt with about as well as they could have been on a country-wide level, which is to say, hardly at all.

Re:NRA sedition^H^H^H patriotism (3, Funny)

fnj (64210) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638583)

Fool. The American people own their government by right spelled out in the Constitution. They can't "take over" what is theirs. Armed citizens are the ultimate last ditch the protection against the government being taken over by rogue elements. Go crawl back under your rock.

Re:NRA sedition^H^H^H patriotism (4, Insightful)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638757)

A couple questions:
When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements? In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?

In the numerous cases where the government has actually oppressed it's people (slavery, segregation, etc.), can you name a single instance of the armed citizenry stopping them?

Re:NRA sedition^H^H^H patriotism (5, Insightful)

Xenx (2211586) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638915)

Armed citizenry is kind of how we broke free and ultimately formed the nation. Just because it wasn't specifically against the US government, it isn't any less valid.

Re:NRA sedition^H^H^H patriotism (0)

ChrisMaple (607946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638943)

When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements?

1860 in the south, 2009.

In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?

No and not yet, respectively.

In the numerous cases where the government has actually oppressed it's people (slavery, segregation, etc.), can you name a single instance of the armed citizenry stopping them?

Although the Whiskey Rebellion was quashed by a show of force, the events it set in motion contributed to Jefferson's election and changing the laws that brought about the rebellion.

Similar comments are applicable to the earlier Shay's Rebellion.

Re:NRA sedition^H^H^H patriotism (2)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638945)

Whilst it is true that "rogue elements" have usurped control of our government, the only last ditch defence possible will be peaceful civil disobedience. Anyone retarded enough to fantasize about armed rebellion has not been paying attention.
Eventually, this Homeland Security horseshit will become so intolerable that even the average citizen will realize that it is un-American. This, OTOH, appears to me to be a bit beyond the pale, and outside of our protected speech. I am all about unpopular opinions, I happen to hold a great many myself, and reckon I'd get arrested or beaten if I shared some of them, but this chump is not Lenny Bruce.

Re:NRA sedition (5, Informative)

russotto (537200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638611)

What you said:
"The very same day, the head of the NRA said that all americans should be trained in automatic weapons for the eventual day when we have to take over our government."

What NRA President Jim Porter ACTUALLY said:
"And I am one who still feels very strongly that that is one of our most greatest charges that we can have today, is to train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm, so that when they have to fight for their country theyâ(TM)re ready to do it. Also, when theyâ(TM)re ready to fight tyranny, theyâ(TM)re ready to do it. Also, when theyâ(TM)re ready to fight tyranny, they have the wherewithal and the weapons to do it."

So training, yes. With automatic weapons, yes. But to take over our government... well, are you suggesting we're living in a tyranny, tovarisch?

So no, the NRA is still not in that category of organizations which advocates the violent overthrow of the United States government. Nice try, though.

Re:NRA sedition (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638875)

Although I kinda wish stronger gun laws got passed which gave the NRA the idea they should stop the 'tyranny' and take over the government.
That is the use described in the Constitution after all.

It would be hilarious for the rest of the world to watch.

Re:NRA sedition (4, Interesting)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638629)

You cannot call this 'sedition' and still claim to follow the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment is specifically designed for exactly the purpose the NRA are stating - this is patriotism, not sedition. As far as the US Constitution is concerned 'sedition' is essentially that activity the current US Administration is undertaking whereby it is bypassing the legislature to enact 'Executive Orders' that achieve anti-Constitutional goals. Of course many in the US don't see or notice this because they mainstream media appears to supporting the bypassing of the Constitution when it doesn't align with their goals (which are socialist in nature - they talk about 'individual freedom' but are actually all for the Government dictating what is 'politically correct' for you to do; this is the anti-thesis of liberty for the smallest minority of all, the *individual*).

I used to be a believer in gun control except the NRA pointed out how anti-Constitutional this is (and I strongly support the US Constitution, despite not being a US citizen). Then we have more practical matters, such as the fact that of the gun deaths each year 2/3 are self-inflicted suicides (if guns were not available then these people would still find a way, perhaps even more messy). Of the remaining ten thousand or so tragic deaths it is pretty safe to say there are *none* committed by NRA members. In fact, most of the deaths are caused by handguns (not by AR-15 and the like) and by criminals who have no license for the weapon (so adding more laws simply won't change that figure). What is really amazing and not reported in the media, is that good people with firearms prevent over *one hundred thousand* instances of crime because they present a firearm in their own defense (with around 2% of these weapons actually needing to be discharged). You must ask yourself, why are the media not reporting the true statistics? why is the Obama Administration not reporting these true statistics, that in a cost-benefit analysis the Second Amendment saves more lives than are taken by criminals with unlicensed weapons? why isn't it emphasized that murderous rampages are only stopped when someone, usually citizens, shoots the madman dead? why should police have a monopoly in defending citizens who are keen to defend themselves (and would rather the police arrive to interview the surviving gun owner than merely investigate the bodies left by armed criminals)? why are the statistics not used for sensible and well-informed debate?

The answer comes back to this, the current Administration is exploiting tragedies to further its agenda in disarming the populace. Once the populace is disarmed they cannot resist the will of the Government. Instead of the citizens being the masters and the Government implementing the will of the people (or their representatives) the situation will be reversed (the citizens serve the Government). The NRA are probably much more aware of history than you are. When Hitler, Stalin etc got into power one of the first things they do was disarm the population. Socialists always do that, because it means the populace has no effective means of resisting the socialist Government. The NRA are correct in this debate and have history and the US Constitution on their side. Can you bring yourself to admit that perhaps some rednecks know more history than you do and perhaps understand the implications of the Obama Administration's "think of the children" agenda to dismember the Constitution? Amazing isn't it? So, if you care about preserving the current liberties in the US (you know, what Conservatives like to do, despite the caricatures the leftist media present to you) then perhaps you could at least listen to the arguments the NRA is making, before dismissing them as ignorant rednecks.

Here's an article by the genius economist Thomas Sowell who goes over the cost-benefit analysis of personal firearms in US society:
http://www.newsmax.com/ThomasSowell/Gun-Control-murder-media/2013/04/18/id/500122 [newsmax.com]
In fact, Sowell's column often present many facts that the mainstream media ignore as not being part of their Politically Correct 'Narrative'.

Slashdotters that are rationalists that go on facts and figures rather than emotion may enjoy reading Thomas Sowell's fact-based analyses on many social issues:
http://www.newsmax.com/Blogs/ThomasSowell/id-144 [newsmax.com]

That said, there is more than can be done with regard to gun control. Criminals and the mentally ill should never be allowed to own guns. A household containing the ex-criminals and the mentally ill should have very strict weapon lock-down policies (eg. separate arms and ammo safes). These are things that can be done to protect the children while still allowing citizens to defend themselves against criminals *and* the formation of a tyrranical government in the future (well, some would look at the trends of the past five years and argue, the very near future).

Re:NRA sedition (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638675)

Then you better throw out the constitution and burn any papers by the founding fathers because what you are calling sedition was a right of the people they supported..

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"....Thomas jefferson

Re:NRA sedition (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638771)

The founders also believed that we should not have any foreign alliances, and that slavery was a necessary evil. Unless you're arguing that we have a patriotic duty to disband NATO and re-impose slavery...

Things change.

Re:NRA sedition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638883)

That's a nice, fat, specious strawman you got there, son.

Re:NRA sedition (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638925)

Hurry up and 'throw off' your Government then. The rest of the world will thank you.

So it goes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638589)

I hate rap as much as the next intelligent guy, but when the US government starts taking away basic freedoms like "freedom of speech" and "freedom of press", that really indicates to me that the US is no longer a free country. It also indicates that the government is scared and disorganized. One more evil empire going under, kicking and screaming. Glad I got out when the getting out was good, because I wouldn't doubt that the US government will start restricting freedom of movement for its own citizens.

Re:So it goes (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638907)

I always thought that expression in art was pretty much anything goes? That art was for the most part above general censorship no matter what?

Doesn't poetry, song and the like get expempted from the likes of this?

Re:In America, we are safe. (1)

Shark (78448) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638707)

In other news, authorities are considering 'shelter in place' as a measure to counter the evils of dubstep.

Re:In America, we are safe. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638913)

I guess we can just dispense with that free speech garbage.
This is just a modern version of burning rock and roll albums by "city fathers and custodians of righteousness"
If we can tolerate threats like G.G. Allen whose career ran more than a decade, Socio/ Political rants of Skrewdriver, who may still be playing afaik and any number of over the edge shock rock out there, we don't need to pick on some talentless moron trying to get his yayas out. Even if it is terrorist, is it instructional? Seriously, a song put to the public made to be terrorist instruction. Kinda counter intuitive.
Thank the Omama administration for tearing another shred from the constitution in the name of safety. Kinda reveals his character to any morons suckered into electing him doesn't it? Will they elect another just as bad? We will be told they did, anyway. If you really believe our country works on the up and up.

News For Nerds? (0, Troll)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638379)

This had better be News For Nerds, because it sure isn't Stuff That Matters. If you don't have a good technical article to post, then don't post anything at all. These flamebait stories are getting old.

Re:News For Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638441)

I think the stories are generally worthwhile, since they offer a perspective on where technology, law, and society are clashing. If you don't like it, move on.

Re:News For Nerds? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638485)

Do you even code?

Re:News For Nerds? (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638477)

Dystopian fiction has always been an interesting topic for nerds. I mean, I'm pretty sure all of us have at least read one or two good dystopian novels that have changed our ways of thinking (1984, Brave New World, We, Anthem, The Time Machine, A Clockwork Orange, etc.) and so when we see the dystopian future that we hoped only existed in the realm of fiction (or at least somewhere other than the US and Western Europe) happening in our backyard, it becomes a discussion point.

Welcome to the USSA (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638399)

Welcome to the USSA where freedom of speech means freedom to praise your government, where the right to bear arms means the right to go hunting, where the right to not be searched without a warrant doesn't apply, where due process can be ignored if the president wants you dead.

Re:Welcome to the USSA (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638517)

Welcome to the USSA where freedom of speech means freedom to praise your government, where the right to bear arms means the right to go hunting, where the right to not be searched without a warrant doesn't apply, where due process can be ignored if the president wants you dead.

... Just like every other government on the planet. Government power is only restrained by the People. And the people right now are fat, docile, and more concerned with who'll win the next American Idol. We're a victim of our own material prosperity... but don't worry: When enough people have become impoverished, hungry, and desperate... that'll change. Again, just like every other government on the planet that has failed.

Re:Welcome to the USSA (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638633)

Revolutions generally end up with more problems than they solve. About the only "successful" revolutions have been people revolting against have been against a foreign power that generally doesn't provide much for them.

Yes, the American revolution was (mostly) successful but more often than not they just trade one form of tyranny for another (Russian revolution, French revolution, etc.)

And there has already been too much compromise made within the structure of the US government to save it beyond a complete restructuring which simply is too massive to ever realistically happen (due to stuff like precedence in the court system, the entire mess with regulatory agencies, etc. I mean just look at the number of antiquated laws on the books now!)

Re:Welcome to the USSA (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638821)

That is the dynamic of the people that drive the revolutions, the ones on top usually wants power, not fairness, not justice, even if the ones below could believe that. Current ones (i.e. Syria) probably is targetted on putting a puppet friendlier with USA and/or Israel (probably the same is in the making in Venezuela in the same direction). Others throw away a government that could be bad or not to put someone that usually is worse (think in some of the african ones, where caring about neutral civilians is just deciding how deep will be buried).

Re:Welcome to the USSA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638635)

And the people right now are fat, docile, and more concerned with who'll win the next American Idol.

I don't think more people are interested in American Idol anymore, its ratings are going down, and people have actually gotten out to vote. Mainly it seems people are docile and satisfied these days because they've participated in diversity! Helping to vote the president. Also gay marriage is really important, we need to make sure that happens, it's our most valuable right.

Re:Welcome to the USSA (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638637)

You are a fucking moron. First of all, you've never been to every country, second you've probably never even been outside of the USA. Stop casting your own government's failings on the rest of the world.

Shut the fuck up unless you have firsthand experience. I've personally LIVED in countries that were much more free than the USA and had governments that the people genuinely liked.

Re:Welcome to the USSA (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638759)

What "People" you are talking about? Lesters [ted.com] ?

When enough people have become impoverished, hungry and desesperate, nothing will change, any kind of organized movement will be detected months before they even meet with all the monitoring [slashdot.org] that is around.

By now the hole that everyone dig in is so deep that is almost no way to get out.

Re:Welcome to the USSA (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638593)

Did you read the (short) article?

He posted “I’m not in reality, So when u see me (expletive) go insane and make the news, the paper, and the (expletive) federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t (expletive) cry or be worried because all YOU people (expletive) caused this (expletive),” [...] “(Expletive) a boston bominb wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!”

You could argue that he's just a stupid teenager making a silly empty threat, but, still from the article, "D’Ambrosio was charged last year with threatening to stab his sister to death. The case was dismissed last month."

So maybe it's worth looking into whether he's really serious or not?

2nd Amendment typo (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638619)

Was actually supposed to read, "the right to bare arms".

Re:2nd Amendment typo (4, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638697)

No, no. It's the right to bear arms. You can have brown bear arms, black bear arms, polar bear arms... but not panda bear arms, because they're endangered. And also not koala bear arms, because they're not actually bears.

Re:2nd Amendment typo (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638919)

I thought it was PETA's contribution to the constitution and a dyslexia error, i.e. it was meant to say "the right to arm bears".

Re:Welcome to the USSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638855)

dunno, making threats to the white house and acts of war to the American population has already been a no no since for I dunno, since the god damned British

I hope the little fuck gets some jail time, it wont be 20 years, thats a scare tactic to all the other monkey faced dumb shits that find it to be an accomplishment when they tie their shoes or fire up their 360

yelling fire in a crowded theater would carry the same punishment, and the freedom of speech nutards need to also understand words mean things... if you cant comprehend that then you should loose your right, and this little dumbshit will as a felon

Re:Welcome to the USSA (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638899)

Old joke from Soviet times:

Q: Is there freedom of speech in the USSA?
A: Yes. Though it highly depends on the speech whether there's freedom after speech.

Hmm. (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638401)

but if formally charged for 'communicating terrorist threats' this would a set a chilling low bar for terrorist investigations."

Please. It's already chillingly low. How many christians have publicly said gays "should burn in hell" ? How many famous celebrities have said they would shoot government officials if they came to take their guns away? I could come up with dozens of examples of more volatile speech by talking heads on television... and god help us if I decide to include examples from that cesspool of humanity called the internet.

Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are. It is, and always has been, about that -- not what you say. Look at the boston bomber -- muslim. Terrorist. But the Aurora shooting? Not a terrorist. Those people that blew up a shiite church in Wisconsin? Not terrorists. In fact, as long as you aren't black, or a muslim, you can probably avoid the "terrorist" label.

The 'terrorist' label is just like the 'communist' label, and before that the 'fascist' label, and before that... you get the idea. Every generation has had their government-sponsored boogieman. Terrorist is ours.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638451)

No, instead if you're a white Christian, you're guilty of "hate crimes" which is basically the same thing as the "terrorist" label.

Re:Hmm. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638483)

No, instead if you're a white Christian, you're guilty of "hate crimes" which is basically the same thing as the "terrorist" label.

So if you're standing in line at an airport and casually remark that you were found guilty of a "hate crime", people will react the same as if you said you are a convicted terrorist? Riiiight -- and I'm the queen of England.

Re:Hmm. (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638521)

That seems pretty unlikely.

Is Pat Buchanan in jail? Is even Fred Phelps in jail?

Re:Hmm. (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638645)

Here's the thing about ideologues:
They read a line of logic, and it makes sense, they conclude "I guess the world actually works like that," but they don't bother to see whether the world actually works like that.

There are zero cases of white Christians actually being legally sanctioned by the government for speech or thought under hate crimes statutes. There are some cases where they were convicted of crimes, and got worse sentences for those reasons; but that happens to everybody. Courts always consider the motive when sentencing people. If you beat a chick up because you like getting into fights and she lost you go to jail for assault and battery. If you beat her up because she's your girlfriend and she pissed you off it's family violence battery.

There are plenty of cases where a Christian has been sanctioned by private organizations for speech, or thought; but a) that's clearly not what you were talking about because a "Hate Crime" is a specific criminal statute, and b) everybody gets in trouble when they say stupid shit. Logically there is nothing wrong with the statement "Under the First Amendment it is unconstitutional for the government to give everyone Christmas off," but I sure as hell would not want to be the guy quoted saying that in the newspaper. Muslims and blacks have it worst of all, because stupid things that are commonly said in those communities tend to really set the cops off.

Re:Hmm. (2)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638723)

Agreed. As long as this kid is rotting in jail for B.S. Facebook bravado while Westboro Baptist Church retains its tax exempt status, it's pretty easy to see what's wrong with the American government. Just saying.

Re:Hmm. (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638921)

Really? How many "hate criminals" are shipped off to Gitmo without a trial?

Re:Hmm. (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638931)

You mean like McVeigh? Oh wait, they always called him a terrorist.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638457)

True Story

Re:Hmm. (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638481)

Most hardcore Christians are content to "let XXXX type of people burn in hell". They don't do it in real life.

Some of these Muslims weirdos very much want to kill, maim or hurt people in this world. If you don't see the difference, I have a dung-ball sandwich with your name written on it.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638891)

Just a heads up to anyone reading this: Take a look at his name and post history before responding to (or moderating) this, please.

Re:Hmm. (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638497)

The 'terrorist' label is just like the 'communist' label, and before that the 'fascist' label, and before that... you get the idea. Every generation has had their government-sponsored boogieman. Terrorist is ours.

Nailed it, GIT. You win the Internet.

Re:Hmm. (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638501)

Just you wait. Teaching and speaking about the American Revolution will be banned as these were acts of terror. Then, some leftist groups will demand American apologize to Great Britain so as to completely absolve ourselves of any past, present, and future ties to "terrorism". Oh, and freedom of speech was another mistake the American public will need to be re-educated on. And so on and so forth....

Re:Hmm. (3, Insightful)

SirSlud (67381) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638835)

Well, it's not like you guys ever taught the American Revolution to begin with in so far as what actually happened.

Re:Hmm. (1)

Shoten (260439) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638569)

Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are. It is, and always has been, about that -- not what you say. Look at the boston bomber -- muslim. Terrorist. But the Aurora shooting? Not a terrorist. Those people that blew up a shiite church in Wisconsin? Not terrorists. In fact, as long as you aren't black, or a muslim, you can probably avoid the "terrorist" label.

Um...this guy isn't even CLOSE to being black or muslim. "Cameron D’Ambrosio," and he looks too white for even that name. I mean, he's from Boston, too. Imagine a dorky white kid with a voice like the Ted (from the movie), but with a higher pitch to his voice.

Re:Hmm. (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638623)

so they can say "see not ALL terrorists are muslim. look at this one, hes white! and a rapper! and in high school! We need to have more monitoring power over everyone!"

/tinfoilhat

Re:Hmm. (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638673)

The 'terrorist' label is not implied racially nor ideologically as you imply. Terrorism is used when a person intends to cause 'terror' to the general populace.

So, devout Muslims who follow Sura 9:29 and want to subjugate and terrorize all non-Muslims in the world are correctly labelled terrorists - because their explicit aim is to terrorize. ... and yes, the ideology of Islam really does hate you for your freedoms (which are 'haram' and against *mainstream* Islam).

Meanwhile, some loon who shoots cops is not a terrorist because their aim is to get at cops (or whatever their grudge may be) and not to 'terrorize' the general population.

Can you see the difference now? it is not racism or anti-Islamism that makes one action terrorism and another not. It is the aims and the methods that make it terrorism. It is simply politically correct indoctrination that tries to conflate racism with the fight against terrorism. Please don't do that, it is immoral to support terrorists whose aim is to hurt and intimidate *civilians*.

Re:Hmm. (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638679)

Generally I agree with you. We white Americans have succeeded in defining "terrorism" as something that only happens to people approved by Fox News.

Unfortunately it's out-of-place in this case because Cammy Dee is white. Granted his entire problem with the cops from the fact he's trying to break into a non-white, non-Fox approved art form, but he's still a white boy.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638709)

I suppose I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that the Boston bombing was being called a terrorist attack well before anyone knew who had done it.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638749)

Nonsense. The Boston bombers were deemed "terrorists" before anyone knew their religion or race.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638751)

christians

famous celebrities

Equals funding and support for whatever party convinces them to vote or support there elections. And we, um hmmm, "they" cannot very well go after those people.

I am sure they would go after punk rock music as well, or any underground or cult music on top of it, since both rap and punk are one in the same. They're both disliked and attack the governmental powers and authority.. Both genres of music are hated, hearing the comments when rap came out was the same comments they made about punk, it is garbage, it will never go anywhere, and both are fairly simple to perform, and create. Both were targets of the FBI or government agencies for communism, terrorism, ect... They set out to stereo type hippies and black panthers as the same, it never stops anytime there is a hint that people have had enough and do not want to live like programmed robots the government uses a new ploy to suppress any uprising, even if the uprising is a non violent, constitution movement.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638773)

How many christians have publicly said gays "should burn in hell"

"*Should* burn in hell" is a wish, not a threat.

How many famous celebrities have said they would shoot government officials if they came to take their guns away

The rich and famous can buy their way out of anything in the United States, including murder. See Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Halle Berry, Robert Blake, Robert Wagner, OJ Simpson. The only reason they finally nailed OJ Simpson is because he is no longer rich or famous (for all intents and purposes). We, the unwashed masses, get the book thrown at us for even the slightest infraction.

Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are. It is, and always has been, about that -- not what you say. Look at the boston bomber -- muslim. Terrorist. But the Aurora shooting? Not a terrorist. Those people that blew up a shiite church in Wisconsin? Not terrorists. In fact, as long as you aren't black, or a muslim, you can probably avoid the "terrorist" label.

Timothy "Oklahoma City Bomber" McVeigh, a white, former Marine was labeled a terrorist and summarily executed for his actions. You're cherry picking.

Re:Hmm. (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638929)

Terrorism is killing innocents for political purposes. The Aurora shooter was just a mentally ill mass murderer. You try to play the race card, and you played it bad and should feel bad.

Twenty years in prison seems excessive (5, Insightful)

litehacksaur111 (2895607) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638409)

From looking at the story, it seems like some prosecutor here wants to come off as tough on crime and terrorists to further their political career. This is Aaron Schwartz all over again. This person in question is just some 18 year old who did something stupid. A reasonable punishment seems like 500 hours community service and a $1000 fine. No reason for 20 years in prison for doing something stupid that harmed no one.The average sentence for rape is around 20 years.

Re:Twenty years in prison seems excessive (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638433)

Its not even a bomb threat either! Might be a bit disturbing and might mean the guy needs some counseling but it in no way should even be considered a bomb threat!

Re:Twenty years in prison seems excessive (5, Insightful)

jrumney (197329) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638601)

If every musician went and got counseling instead of turning their anger into music and lyrics, we'd all be listening to Justin Beiber. Think about that next time you suggest that someone with a perfectly harmless outlet for their anger "needs counseling" because some people find what they say disturbing.

Re:Twenty years in prison seems excessive (3, Insightful)

Libertarian001 (453712) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638607)

In other words you don't actually believe in free speech. Good to know.

The kid is an idiot for saying that in charged political times. Doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to say it.

Re:Twenty years in prison seems excessive (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638641)

The reasonable punishment is ZERO. It's a song, and it is protected speech.

Re:Twenty years in prison seems excessive (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638683)

Making a death threat is not protected speech. Did you miss the part where "D’Ambrosio was charged last year with threatening to stab his sister to death."

Re:Twenty years in prison seems excessive (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638713)

...which was dismissed.

They can charge anyone with nearly anything now in 2013, but thankfully we haven't gotten to the point where they can convict anyone.

Re:Twenty years in prison seems excessive (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638781)

And it can be dismissed for lack of evidence (two people talking with no other witnesses) or the victim simply not wanting to press charges (because, as his sister, she might be willing to forgive him). "Dismissed" is very far cry from "Not Guilty". Just having the charge dismissed doesn't mean he didn't make it, and it would have had to have been damn serious for him to be charged with it in the first place.

Re:Twenty years in prison seems excessive (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638653)

why would 500 hours and a grand fine be reasonable for ones words? I hear worse come out of the mouths of famous rappers mouths on a daily. only thing he is guilty of is being a bad rapper, like every other white boy from the burbs* something reasonable would be not waste resources on such stupid shit

Re:Twenty years in prison seems excessive (1)

cptdondo (59460) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638791)

Ummm.... Have we already reduced the bill of rights to "I have the right to shoot you"? I swear there was something in there about speach. Can't quite remember; it's been a while.

Re:Twenty years in prison seems excessive (5, Insightful)

narcc (412956) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638901)

This person in question is just some 18 year old who did something stupid. A reasonable punishment seems like 500 hours community service and a $1000 fine.

Try this on for size: "The person in question is just some 18 year old who said something stupid. Punishment is unnecessary as he's done nothing wrong."

See, the kid never actually threatened anyone. His little rap song was directed at no one. He even made not as himself, but as his play-pretend rapper persona.

That goofy song of his is actually a very healthy way for him to deal with his feelings of powerlessness. Children (and even some adults) do this all the time. It's perfectly normal.

A cute example: My wife and I were watching a friends 4-year-old. We used to keep crabs, which the little fellow really enjoyed watching -- even though he was a little bit frighted by them. To deal with those feelings, he told me about the giant robot crab that eats other crabs but (and this is the important part) doesn't eat people.

How would you prefer that this young suburban rapper deal with his feelings? Write a story, sing a song, paint a picture, etc. or rob a store, bully other kids, do drugs, etc.?

that's nothing, i saw three movies recently (5, Insightful)

decora (1710862) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638431)

where the white house gets attacked. why dont we lock those fillmakers up? or at least those actors spewing those hateful lines.

Re:that's nothing, i saw three movies recently (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638743)

where the white house gets attacked. why dont we lock those fillmakers up? or at least those actors spewing those hateful lines.

Those can be viewed as helpful propaganda. People readily mix reality and movies - that's partly how Soviet Union collapsed (yes, lots of people thought American movies were reality, because Soviet movies tended to deal with everyday crap lives). And since people mix reality and movies, then the government can say that there are all there "terrists" that will kill you and eat your children if they don't implement Super Patriot 2 Act or Wireless Tapping OK Act. And people are more readily to believe that.

Do you think people in the 1980s would accept getting xrayed to get to a plane? So why do they accept that so readily today?

Re:that's nothing, i saw three movies recently (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638851)

So, ever seen any AR tie-ins where the director or any of the actors goes on Facebook to claim they're going to commit a copy-cat crime of a recent bomb attack (or any terrorist attack, really) without any disclaimers or links to the movie they're supposed to be tying into? Bonus points for musical form just to prove that musical lyrics are incapable of communicating a serious message.

Lyrics? (2)

Leuf (918654) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638437)

Umm, he wasn't arrested because of his lyrics, he was arrested because of a rant on Facebook. He seems to be trying to say that he's going to be famous because of his rapping and trying to act like a thug.

Re:Lyrics? (1)

jrumney (197329) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638579)

Umm, he wasn't arrested because of his lyrics, he was arrested because of a rant on Facebook. He seems to be trying to say that he's going to be famous because of his rapping and trying to act like a thug.

Ever seen rap lyrics? The "rant on facebook" looks suspiciously like they could be his rap lyrics to me, especially since he's boasting about becoming famous and acting like a thug.

Re:Lyrics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638735)

So, if it's rap lyrics, it's totally alright to make a bomb threat? Is that because rap music is incapable of carrying a serious message?

Re:Lyrics? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638867)

If its ok to plot killing the president if its for a book?
I am sure most people are ok with people making an alternate reality that may be terroristic in nature if its for the purpose of a piece of art or whatever.
I am no rap fan, but if those are rap lyrics he is as guilty as a writer that wrote a terrorist plot.

Its not impossible to carry a serious message, but it is very possible and likely that its intention is not to be a bomb threat.

Re:Lyrics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638817)

Hmm somehow this raises song from my memory where they sing: I shot the sheriff, but i dint shoot the deputy...

Kids buy into rap music whole heartedly (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638455)

Kids who want to be bad listen to rap music and buy into that way of gang life early on. Bill Cosby said it best when he said,"The kids listen to the rap music and get brain damage." Rap music didn't invent crime, but it doesn't discourage it. Between advocating a criminals life, and disrespect for women, much rap music is bad for society in general. Kids get seduced by a life of crime to get their way, and end up trying to live it. They just end up screwing up other people's life and their own. If rap artists were really interested in the well being of their audience, they'd rap about how a kid should take the hard road, study in school, be cool to everyone, respect yourself, and others. There's no street cred when it comes to taking the hard road though. People who buy rap music want to be told they're oppressed, and they should take the easy road out.

Re: Kids buy into rap music whole heartedly (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638527)

There are rappers with such suggestions.

You prefer to ignore them, and fast the whole group as a problem, thereby validating all the ones complaining about being blindly judged and condemned.

Yay. Thanks for helping.

Re:Kids buy into rap music whole heartedly (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638563)

People buy what they want to emulate and it doesn't really matter the genre of music.

I mean, look at AC/DC's Shoot to Thrill

"Shoot to thrill, play to kill Too many women with too many pills Shoot to thrill, play to kill I got my gun at the ready, gonna fire at will"

Or 22-20 Blues by Skip James (written in 1931)

"Sometimes she gets unruly An she act like she just don't wanna do But I get my 22-20 I cut that woman half in two"

Almost any genre of music has "questionable" lyrics. I think it is less of music making people bad as much as it is that those who are attracted to a life of crime will listen to music about a life of crime. Just like how people who like hunting, drinking beer and driving trucks listen to country music, its not because of country music that you like those things, you like those things so you listen to country music.

Because of this, there will always be an audience for "criminal" rappers, having a bunch of "quality" rappers won't change it.

Re:Kids buy into rap music whole heartedly (4, Insightful)

SirSlud (67381) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638861)

That's called a confirmation bias. I think you'd have to be pretty ignorant to ignore the social conditions that drove the birth of gangster rap, and the fact that the rise of gangster rap in the 90s was actually thanks to the purchasing power of the white suburban class who wanted to be bad ass. I'm fairly confident in saying that you haven't any credibility on the history of rap anymore than I have any credibility in speaking about metal.

Asphinctersaywhat? (2)

cultiv8 (1660093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638487)

His lyrics:

“I’m not in reality, So when u see me fucking go insane and make the news, the paper, and the fucking federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t fucking cry or be worried because all YOU people fucking caused this shit. Fuck a boston bominb wait till u see the shit I do, I’m a be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me"

Compare that against the shit I remember in the 90s (dre, snoop dog, easy z, compton's most wanted, tupac, blah blah blah) and it's kinda poetic. Eg. Above the Law "Another Execution" and it seems like rap lyrics are getting better:

Because I take out my weapon And I quickly start blastin', I go total loco like a crazy assasin, I look at my posse they say nothings confusin', Why? why? why? It's just another execution

Re:Asphinctersaywhat? (2)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638613)

Is it bad that the first thing that popped into my head was, "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran"?

And... (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638523)

How many rap lyrics *don't* contain statements that could be construed as a specific threat?

Re:And... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638575)

Three. Ever.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638785)

Are you saying that we should just designate all gangsta rap as terrorist propaganda, and we can get DHS to enforce the prohibition of it?

Count me in!

Re:And... (4, Interesting)

SirSlud (67381) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638889)

Tribe Called Quest? Jurrasic 5? J-Live? Curren$y? Drake? Jay-Z? Jungle Brothers? De La Soul? Pharcyde? Kanye? ... fuckit, that took about 5 seconds and I'm bored already. I'm even too bored to google for delicious metal lyrics. As an intelligent, employed, classically musically trained white guy from the burbs, I feel sad for folks who really think they're "above" rap. You don't have to like it, but it's no smarter or dumber than any other genre.

Con los terroristas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638557)

And do the Harlem Shake.

Terroristic Threats (2)

c4tp (526292) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638621)

Come on now, no need to go into armchair revolutionary panic mode. Terroristic threatening is a common statutory criminal offense. It doesn't imply that the perpetrator is a member of a terrorist cell or that our liberties are being attacked. It's sort of like an assault, just a little more specific and serious.

Generalized definition of a terrorist threat:
1. Willfully threaten to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm.
2. Make threat with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat.
3. The threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution.
4. The threat actually caused fear in the victim.
5. The fear was reasonable.

Generalized definition of an assault:
1. Intent to create the state of fear or danger in the victim.
2. The victim had a reasonable apprehension (belief) that they would be harmed.
3. The victim must experience fear in response to a threat that is imminent, or immediately about to occur.
4. The conduct must present either a threat of physical harm or offensive behavior.

Head between his knees? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638739)

> sat in court with his head hung between his knees

Was this a bit of editorializing?

Threats require intent by definition (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638747)

How does Jewish Hollywood get away with creating scenes of mass violence against the American people, and indeed even the government and president, and yet no-one from Hollywood is ever arrested for "terrorist threats"? The answer, of course, is expensive lawyers that KNOW the US Constitution and legal system. For them, it does NOT matter how offensive the 'man on the street' finds any given scene depicting violence in one of their movies.

When it comes to the rest of you, especially those of you from groups (racial, ethnic, political etc) that are seen as problematic by the monsters that run the USA, the court of public opinion is used to justify outrageous police actions, like the arrest of this 'rapper'. Instead of asking "has he broken the law" you are told by the mainstream media to ask yourself whether his behaviour "offends" you.

Do the Jewish productions depicting the destruction of the Whitehouse this year (3 films at least) represent a threat that law-enforcement should be investigating? At the very least these films put 'ideas' into the heads of some of the people who will be amongst the millions that will watch them. But you've already knee-jerked the Pavlovian response that it would be an horrific abuse of police power to even think about interviewing THESE film-makers.

Meantime, most of you are bending over backwards to justify the prosecution of the rapper, just as at least 50% of you are cheering the prosecution of that young black school student who created a mild chemical reaction in a plastic bottle, and popped the top off with the resultant gas pressure.

A threat requires INTENT. A 'threat' is NOT the same as causing distress or disturbance - which can happen through careless inappropriate behaviour that may NOT require intent. The mainstream media, while cheering the atrocities carried out by Israel in Syria, will, through yellow journalism, imply that you should be dumb enough to conflate 'disturbing the peace' with 'making a threat'.

There is a reason you have many laws, not just one all encompassing law combined with the 'judgement' of the police and prosecuting authorities. As I said, Hollywood feels fully secure behind its legions of expensive lawyers. Everyone who now finds themselves on the wrong side of Team Obama and the zionists that rule the USA can now forget about the Constitution and due process, and consider instead 'mob rule' where law becomes whatever the mainstream press can convince the sheeple it should be.

Years later, some of the people abused by mob justice (the form of justice applied by prosecutors who ask the media-influenced sheeple for their opinion for how 'justice' should be served) may get restitution IF their cause is taken up by organisations that insist proper legal principles are applied after the fact, but most will be forced by the disgustingly corrupt court system in the USA into some form of plea-bargain. If you plea-bargain, you are prevented from claiming judicial abuse later down the line, no matter how absolute the evidence of abuse may be.

Once upon a time, arrested Americans had a right to a lawyer, to prevent brutish police interrogations collecting 'confession' evidence that would allow a conviction that was otherwise impossible because of the facts of the original offence. Obama has removed that right. Now, if you are one of Obama's friends, you'll get that lawyer, but if you are one of his 'enemies', you have no right to legal representation, and Obama will simply flood the air-waves with propaganda telling the sheeple that it is disgusting that criminals think they have a right to hinder their prosecution by hiding behind 'clever' lawyers.

When politicians constantly ask the 'mob' how they think police investigations should work, you know you are disappearing into the black-hole of a police-state.

hm (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year and a half ago | (#43638775)

teenager who looks about one step away from retarded is so fucking stupid to announce to the entire world that "boston bominb wait till u see the shitI do" and people question it, after nearly 3 weeks of "why the fuck wasn't the Boston bombers integrated after flying to Russia OMG!"

kid is a stupid fucking poser with no future, who might actually do something dangerous cause he really has nothing else

can we just kill the cattle already?

Read the article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638811)

Seriously read the article people. This isn't as simple as some guy rapping about violence. This guy made social media postings/videos about bombing and killing people. If they had done nothing and he had gone through with it, people would be complaining about them not acting on the threats. Keep in mind this kid was arrested for threatening to stab and kill his sister. He is clearly unstable, and made threats in a public forum. Thats enough red flags to act on.

Boston Police Meth Boilers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638911)

The explosions at the Boston Marathon were from Police operated Meth Boilers where fights broke out with rival heroin gangs.

The video showing 'white powder' next to the building was not fertilizer ! It was raw cocaine the Boston Police were 'cooking' to make Crack on the sidewalk.

You are ignoring the central issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43638935)

The Central problem / issue is that this cracker is white. White people can NOT rap. As matter of fact they are not allowed to rap. Rapping is the music of the oppressed minority. The minority is oppressed by white people. That is why black people have to rap about rapeing, killing and robbin the society that has oppressed them since before they were born. This is perfectly justified. Being a white cracker myself, I realize that I am scuum, and deserved to be raped, killed and robbed to death. However this soft white bitch is rapping about blowing stuff up. He should not be allowed to do this stuff. As a matte of fact he should be arrested because he is a honkey. Only people who have the blood right (black people) are allowed to rap, wear womens underwear on their heads, wear pants that fall off their but (but hey they are still cool because they are black), and use the latin word for black (e.g nigger) (oops I just said the 'N' word. Now I have to kill myself.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?