RoR: Forum

Jeffrey I would always take exception to a joke that could either lead to direct harm or cause an individual to bear damages as Robert pointed out "Physical intimidation and threats of violence can cause innocent people tremendous damage and harm, as they must rearrange their lives to accommodate the possibility of attack. After all, who can tell which coercive statements are "idle threats" or serious ones?."

I would personally take any threat of physical violence made against me seriously especially if it was made on the radio to a large audience. You can't expect people to constantly weigh someone's words as just a joke or a real threat. At times trying to weigh this is costly and too burdensome.

People can make an ass out of themselves, but not out of the detriment of someone else.

Do you think jokes are legal speech no matter what the context? I keep asking this question but I haven't gotten an answer, is it ok to joke about having a bomb while waiting at the airport?

Post 21

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:01am

John, while I entirely agree with your post, I think Jeff himself was only joking! In other words, I believe he agrees with us, and was only making his point with a bit of humor.

Jeff, am I right?

Post 22

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:15am

Ah, my apologies to Jeff then if he was joking. I took his words out of context.

Post 23

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:06am

John,

At the airport, is he joking with well known friends who know him well and know one he does not have a bomb, or is he joking with some group of strangers? What sort of punishment do you think such behavior deserves? What sort of punishment do you think the DJ in this particular case deserves?

Post 24

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:30am

John:

Yes, I was only joking and I do agree with Robert's post. I'm sorry for the confusion.

I know it is very easy to misinterpret a person's "tone" when you only have their writing upon which to base your assessment - even when we do include a smiley! :-)

Thanks for the apology, but it's not necessary in this case. I'll try to be more "obvious" about my humor in the future!
--
Jeff

Post 25

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:35am

I see this as a publicity stunt that got out of hand. Being outrageous is part of his act. That's what they pay him big bucks to do and that's what people tune in to listen to (by their own free will).

I seriously doubt he meant what he said and I seriously doubt he will repeat something like that. (He will probably milk the incident for all it's worth, though.)

Look at the guy's history and context.

Michael

Post 26

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:53am

What the context of joking at an airport about having bomb is, is completely irrelevant. You would be asking security officials to have to make a nuanced, snap judgement call on the context of the joke. It would be costly, burdensome and potentially dangerous to ask them to do so. In fact if you do even joke about having a bomb in any context to any person at an airport, you do risk criminal prosecution and expulsion from the airport. There are signs at airports that warn people of this. People are forewarned and told it is best to not joke about anything of that nature at an airport. So it is both now an "ought" and an "is", and for good reason. Would you trust security personnel at an airport to make a split decision judgement call on whether a joke was serious or not? And if we don't trust that kind of snap judgement from an airport security officer, then having to detain someone and question him is a costly excercise, hence some restitution or punishment is due.

If after further investigation authorities conclude the individual was joking, the fines and or imprisonment obviously should not be as harsh as someone who was not joking. What the punishment should be is up to the nature of the crime, I don't know exactly what it would be but it would have to punitive, to deter others from making jokes like that an airport, and also be compensatory, to pay for the expenses of an investigation. But there certainly is a line somewhere one must draw.

As far as Star the Hater's punishment, it ought to be something punitive, and compensatory. I understand he's charged with endangering the welfare of minor, I would agree with that charge.

Post 27

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 3:01pm

John Armaos and Robert Bidinotto, I understand your concerns and they have merit.

I do prefer to err on the side of greater liberty of speech when a controversy like this arises, though.

I will chew on this a while longer.

I doubt that Star the Hater actually meant to initiate any physical force against the targets of his tirade. However, a "reasonable person" who did not know him might infer otherwise and live in fear as a result. That is bad. The person uttering such words needs to keep in mind that words have precise meanings and need to be used in precise ways to prevent such valid misunderstandings. This especially applies to someone who claims to adhere to a philosophy of reason like Objectivism.

I will remain cautious in assessing this situation. I want to maximize the exercise of free speech without sanctioning credible threats of unearned violence or fraud. So far, the threats of violence from Star the Hater have not sounded very credible. But I can see why his targets might think otherwise.

The same goes even more for people who make wisecracks about bombs in airports or fires in theaters. Those amount to dangerous acts of fraud.

Post 28

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 4:47pm

The "victims" involved here really did have their lives re-arranged as the cost of Star's "entertainment." The girl's mother called her daughter's school to alert them of the threat, and the child was forced to stay inside during recess, and was not allowed to play outside after she got home. It was distressing for her whole family.

I'm guessing, but I'll bet some much needed sleep was lost as well.

Post 29

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:09am

The man issued a $500 bounty for information on the little girls where abouts. That in its self is a violation of her safety. There are certain elemants in this country that would actually kidnap that child and bring her to him to collect the ransome. It is an absolute ignorant thing to do, and the man should be convicted for violating her safety.

Post 30

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 5:45am

So far, the arguments I have seen against the notion that Star practiced legitimate free speech have been overwhelming and truck-like. I would be hard pressed not to yield and admit that he crossed the line from free speech to credible threats of harm to others.

Can anyone make an overwhelming and truck-like defense of his actions? If so, please do so now. I would like to see that.

Post 31

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:56am

The entire episode is in the context of a comedy show, and against a well-known rival DJ, someone who is in the public eye (and who probably said things himself). That it would actually cause real fear for the wife I find to be extremely unlikely, and even if true would be the result of irrational fears. I think the DJ thought, what a great way to get publicity and sink a rival, and so they (and the councilman) created this hype. However, it does depend on the entire broadcast overall, so I would need to hear it before making a full judgement. He was not offering $500 ransom, he said he would pay $500 if someone called in and told him what the school was. Now had he actually done this (paid someone for the information) that would establish some actual intent, but he never did.

Post 32

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:23am

The type of mind that would spew such filth even as a joke is so far from values as such--never mind Objectivist values--that I don't even think he should be permitted to post here.

Post 33

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 9:51am

I never did understand what the hell he was talking about when he posted here. I don't really want to defend him, but at the same time I also see a lot of the usual overly PC tones to this. Still, what could he have been thinking? I would have fired him for sure as an employer. I just think that criminal charges is going a bit too far.

Post 34

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:12pm

The mention of this website of all places, and the slimy pseudo-neutrality of using Ayn Rand's name in connection with his, is nothing more than the typical intellectual dishonesty you'd expect from what passes for the Times these days.

The Times is one of the last remaining bulwarks of the now-long-discredited pinko-stinko leftist intellectual establishment in this country. They're so dead in the water, so worn-out intellectually and morally, and this is just yet another sign of how pathetic they've gotten.

Post 35

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:37pm

Chris Cathcart: "The Times is one of the last remaining bulwarks of the now-long-discredited pinko-stinko leftist intellectual establishment in this country.� They're so dead in the water, so worn-out intellectually and morally, and this is�just yet another�sign of how pathetic they've gotten."

Are you referring to the Times' obsequiousness towards the Bush administration in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq?

Post 36

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 12:02am

What I find more shocking than Mr. Torain's nonsense is the patronizing approval given him by many posters on RoR. Is this because the Objectivist movement is lily white?

Ayn Rand was conspicuously silent with regards to racism during the height of the civil rights movement. If, as Nathaniel Branden claims, Rand refused to speak out because of the monopoly on the subject by the left, this was a tragic missed opportunity. Rand's assessment of racism in the September 1963 issue of "The Objectivist Newsletter" was brilliant. But shouldn't her voice have been raised louder and more often against what she claimed as "the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism"?

Post 37

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 1:12am

In my mind, Kurt hit the nail on the head in post 31.

Yeah, this guy is 'off his rocker' -- but THAT'S what creates iconoclasts (ie. eccentricity sells). Look at the context, folks. The guy was being totally public and forthright (ie. transparent). Integrate that for a minute (why don't ya'). If I were to announce -- to millions of listeners -- an intent; what in the hell do you think it would be? It could only be one of 2 things ...

1) An intent that folks would agree with

or

2) A joke (an intent that folks would find preposterous -- but redeemably funny)

Ed
[it'd be different if he -- privately -- sought to 'buy' information]

Post 38

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 1:52am

I have to weigh in on this. I agree with Bob, Jeff, John, David and Teresa. Troi Torain deserved to be arrested for his remarks, which the police properly interpreted as a threat, regardless of whether or not he actually intended to harm the girl or mother. In a case like this, you have to err on the side of taking him seriously and of protecting potential victims.

Moreover, Torain had to know the effects that his words would have on the family - had to know that the family members would legitimately worry about being attacked, especially by someone as outrageous and eccentric as he is.

This man struck me as a nutcase from Day One. Never did I think he was worth the kind of adulation people were showing him on RoR. Nor do I understand how people could possibly be defending him now. His actions were not a defensible form of free speech; they were clearly and unambiguously coercive.

- Bill

Post 39

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 8:59am