The Alarming Case of Justin Carter, Facebook “Terrorist”

[…]  When speech is a crime, thought is a crime, because when punishing speech the authorities are actually punishing what they think — or want jurors to think — was meant by the speech. Even when acting in good faith, people misinterpret. Since no one reads minds, it is a good thing the First Amendment protects our speech.

Unfortunately the First Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, has been under siege recently. Otherwise any speech that does not represent a clear and present danger to other people’s safety would be protected.

Punishable speech is one area where liberty skates on thin of ice. Despite the obvious need for security, “terroristic threat” is another:

According to the indictment, Carter’s statement met two of the necessities required by state law: His words were uttered “with the intent to place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury,” or uttered “with the intent to cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service.”

Too bad Justin couldn’t have loaned the authorities his sense of humor, because that would never pass the laugh test.  (read the entire article)

After reading the article, and comprehending the full consequences of Justin Carter’s speech expression, consider this:

Disparate Treatment ?

You decide