From The "What You Post Online, Counts" Department

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another example of our collective thin skins and the nanny state we have imposed upon ourselves. Would she have been just as guilty if she had just posted a pic from the range?
If not is that the next step down the road?
 
Kevin Carroll, president of the Virginia Fraternal Order of Police, said:

"Free speech doesn't say you have the right to insult somebody else or threaten them in any form."

That's weak. Free speech can be restricted if it can be expected to incite an immediate violent reaction against the speaker by the person the speech is directed at. It's hard to see how that could happen if the victim of the threat is reading about it on the internet.
 
The Old Fuff has found an easy solution to this problem.

He doesn't have a Facebook page, doesn't frequent social media, and has never posted a picture of himself or anyone else - with or without a firearm.

Those who are foolish enough too do so leave themselves wide open because of the way things are relative to government and other surveillance and snooping.

A much better way to exchange pictures between families and friends is by email attachments. It's not only more private but less likely to attract unwanted advertising.
 
Facebook is rabidly anti-gun. Which is why I don't post any pictures or statuses related to firearms on my page. I posted a picture of a gun I was trying to sell to gun trading group and it was reported. A rifle just laying on my bedroom floor was "threatening."

The only time I mention firearms on FB is in THR-style advice. I would much rather be rid of Facebook altogether but with so many friends in the military across the country and around the world, it is worth keeping despite how they feel about the 2A.
 
The Old Fuff has found an easy solution to this problem.

He doesn't have a Facebook page, doesn't frequent social media, and has never posted a picture of himself or anyone else - with or without a firearm.

Those who are foolish enough too do so leave themselves wide open because of the way things are relative to government and other surveillance and snooping.

A much better way to exchange pictures between families and friends is by email attachments. It's not only more private but less likely to attract unwanted advertising.
I'm with you. :)
 
I'm with you.

Could it be that us "Old Folks" have been around long enough to recognize a trap when they see one? :uhoh:

Anyone who has any doubts about so-called, "Social Media" should take a hint and follow the money.

Old Fuff... ;)
 
As one person said about social media, if you are not buying the product then you ARE the Product being sold. Be careful who you sell yourself to.
 
I posted a picture of a gun I was trying to sell to gun trading group and it was reported. A rifle just laying on my bedroom floor was "threatening."

Interesting how they have no problem posting Islamaniac stuff.
 
As much as I think they are over reacting, to post "So you know the difference when u come find me," is not very smart, and I can clearly see the implication.
 
Old Fuff said:
The Old Fuff has found an easy solution to this problem.

He doesn't have a Facebook page, doesn't frequent social media, and has never posted a picture of himself or anyone else - with or without a firearm.

Those who are foolish enough too do so leave themselves wide open because of the way things are relative to government and other surveillance and snooping....
old lady new shooter said:
I'm with you.
I hate to break it to you, but forums like THR are a form of social media. And yes, we know that some law enforcement agencies do monitor such forums.

gun_with_a_view said:
...Free speech can be restricted if it can be expected to incite an immediate violent reaction against the speaker by the person the speech is directed at. It's hard to see how that could happen if the victim of the threat is reading about it on the internet. ...
Speech may be free, but it still has social and legal consequences. It can be evidence of motivation, predisposition, state of mind, intent, character, etc.

As outlined here by Massad Ayoob:
...I know for a fact that we DO have the technology to pull things out of your hard drive that you thought were deleted. We DO have the right to ask you, under penalty of perjury, whether you post on any Internet forum, and under what name, and we DO have the power to subpoena any posts via your IP from the Internet hosts, who under law have no choice but to "give you up." Don't let the seeming anonymity of the Internet delude you: when things get serious, you won't be anonymous anymore....

He was trying to make the point, in general terms, that any notion you might have that you can't get caught for what you write over the Internet is hooey. Some folks would be very surprised by the amount of useful information the police and prosecutor can get from your computer and your Internet presence. Note that he mentions a subpoena. That is another form of compulsory process used to gather evidence. Or sometimes the police will need a search warrant, which they'll be likely to get; and sometimes they won't. But however they have to get it, if it's there they can and will get it.

I've taken a bunch of continuing legal education classes about effective use of evidence from social media (like Internet forums). Similar classes are offered to prosecutors and police officers. I know a number of police agencies around here that have assigned officers to regularly monitor various Internet sites.

The "take-home message" is that plaintiff lawyers, law enforcement and prosecutors know all about social media and have been learning to use it effectively in civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions. See this article headlined "Bay Area prosecutors increasingly using social media posts in criminal cases" from the 16 August 2013 edition of the Contra Costa Times:
PLEASANTON -- A teenage driver originally accused of vehicular manslaughter now faces a murder charge in the death of a bicyclist, partly because prosecutors say he bragged on Twitter about driving dangerously.

His case is part of a growing trend of social media posts being used as evidence against suspects, authorities said Friday.

....

As suspects feel compelled to post their misdeeds online for audiences to see, investigators have taken advantage, using the online quasi-confessions to bolster their cases, Bay Area prosecutors said.

In San Francisco, a cyclist in March fatally struck a 71-year-old pedestrian in a crosswalk after speeding through three red lights in the Castro District. Chris Bucchere, who eventually pleaded guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter, received a stiffer charge after he posted his explanation of the crash on a cycling group's website....
 
The Old Fuff has found an easy solution to this problem.

He doesn't have a Facebook page, doesn't frequent social media, and has never posted a picture of himself or anyone else - with or without a firearm.

Those who are foolish enough too do so leave themselves wide open because of the way things are relative to government and other surveillance and snooping.

A much better way to exchange pictures between families and friends is by email attachments. It's not only more private but less likely to attract unwanted advertising.
Eh, I'd argue the opposite. SM is a great way to effectively organize friends, associates, and build coalitions for causes. For those that aren't on SM, you really can't form an intelligent opinion on the matter.

If you're trying to fly under the radar, you're entire identity can be figured out in a minute based on your IP address on this site. Presumably, you have guns and are on a "list" somewhere. You may have a carry permit - another list. Your credit card purchases are indeed tracked. Your "private" emails with words and images are quickly digested by the NSA. Your life is far from "private."

SM (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and dozens of others) instantly contects hundreds of millions of people or any number thereof. It's how most people (or a huge percent anyway) get their news, politics, entertainment and comedy.

If only one side (them) is using it to smear gun owners, we'll lose. We as a gun community must be dialed in and connected to share good stuff. I see positive gun stories daily on SM that I would have otherwise not seen or been aware of, and I share them with others.

You can "poh-poh" SM all day, but it's a reality of life.

And it's funny to also see dumb criminals caught.
 
Eh, I'd argue the opposite.

Well now, go right ahead. My skin makes an elephant's hide look like tissue paper. :)

SM is a great way to effectively organize friends, associates, and build coalitions for causes. For those that aren't on SM, you really can't form an intelligent opinion on the matter.

If I need to alert my friends about something of common interest I can (and sometimes do) send out an global e-mail.

If you're trying to fly under the radar, you're entire identity can be figured out in a minute based on your IP address on this site. Presumably, you have guns and are on a "list" somewhere. You may have a carry permit - another list. Your credit card purchases are indeed tracked. Your "private" emails with words and images are quickly digested by the NSA. Your life is far from "private."

By this time I'm sure I have a record so long it requires an entire file cabinet. I'm more worried about getting junk mail, unwanted advertisements, spam, possible identity theft, and additional intrusions into my life. I need SM like an additional hole in my head.

If only one side (them) is using it to smear gun owners, we'll lose. We as a gun community must be dialed in and connected to share good stuff. I see positive gun stories daily on SM that I would have otherwise not seen or been aware of, and I share them with others.

Very true, but I'm sure others can take up the slack left by my absence.

You can "poh-poh" SM all day, but it's a reality of life.

It's a reality to only those that choose to participate it. I have no objection to what others do. I simply proposed an alternative for those who are thinking about getting into the social media scene.

And it's funny to also see dumb criminals caught.

But all too often smarter(?) ones use it to their advantage. Social Media can be (and often is) a conduit for all kinds of crimes.
 
I hate to break it to you, but forums like THR are a form of social media. And yes, we know that some law enforcement agencies do monitor such forums.

Of course, and I am well aware that this forum is probably under surveillance by any number of... "interested parties."

That said, I see no reason to further extend my exposure for no particularly useful purpose. Others of course disagree and think Social Media is the best thing since sliced bread. But to the extent that they extend themselves to possible liability is no reason I should (or will) do the same.
 
Old Fuff said:
...I see no reason to further extend my exposure for no particularly useful purpose. Others of course disagree and think Social Media is the best thing since sliced bread.....
Social media is a tool, like any other -- nothing more. It has its uses, and there are purposes for which it's not useful, and indeed could be dangerous. There are ways to use social medium wisely and ways to use it foolishly.

Some people have various misconceptions about social media. But like every other tool in life's toolbox, from computers to screwdrivers to guns, folks who learn their uses and limitations, and who make appropriate use of them, will most often have better results.
 
Last edited:
Very true, but I'm sure others can take up the slack left by my absence.

And here's one big flaw in the thinking. Participation by all is important.

Examples.

In Washington we gun owners lost a big defeat and had I594 crammed down our throats because gun owners failed to 1) get informed, 2) perhaps were unreachable via social media to learn the truth about this crappy law, and 3) felt that others would pick up the slack. This is the mentality of losing. Every vote, every person participating, counts. By not participating on voting, we lose.

This repeats itself on the local and state and national levels. Whether you like the President or not, we got him because of his ability to generate momentum, interest, and effective movements/communication on Social Media like FB, Twitter, etc. The anti-gun side uses SM very effectively to generate revenue, rally, etc.

Same with SM. On SM you're not just "one person." You connect hundreds or perhaps thousands of people. You can post positive gun stories to help push the knob ever so slightly in the pro-gun direction and influence 1, 10, 100, 1000 or more people.... who in turn do likewise.

Sure it can be abused as with everything.

If it's not you, then fine. But THR and other sites are social media so by being here you are participating.
 
"I hate to break it to you, but forums like THR are a form of social media. And yes, we know that some law enforcement agencies do monitor such forums. "

I don't have a problem with that. But I would never post with my real name or post photos of myself or provide enough information for bad actors to target me.
 
Could it be that us "Old Folks" have been around long enough to recognize a trap when they see one?

Anyone who has any doubts about so-called, "Social Media" should take a hint and follow the money.

Old Fuff...
I don't think that is the case. I am 39 and I despise facebook. I don't post pics of me or anyone else on any social media site. My outlook is if you want to keep in touch with me, pick up the phone and call or stop by. :)
 
I wonder how today's Supreme Court ruling will affect the outcome of her case, if at all.
 
CLP said:
I wonder how today's Supreme Court ruling will affect the outcome of her case, if at all.

Very little I would imagine. SCOTUS, as is there purview, took a very narrow focus in the Abercrombie case to determine if religion was the driving factor in Elauf not being hired. Since she was not hired based on religion, they ruled against Abercrombie.
 
Not that case. There was a case of a man (ex?) posting to facebook things much worse (IMHO) about a lady. Best I remember from an npr story, there was no real danger because the guy was supposedly just 'venting', so there was no crime.
 
Not that case. There was a case of a man (ex?) posting to facebook things much worse (IMHO) about a lady. Best I remember from an npr story, there was no real danger because the guy was supposedly just 'venting', so there was no crime.
And what he posted sounded like real threats to me, he went into some detail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top