When the threat not only looks credible, but it's likely that you'll be able to carry it out.

The government has misinterpreted obvious jokes before. Threats that were not credible at all. All parties involved knew they were jokes, but since the government doesn't know the people and is an emotionless overlord, it took them seriously.

If a threat is not likely to be carried out, it's just a waste of taxpayer money (and an individual's freedom) to imprison them. They could be joking/emotional. Very possible with human beings.

Might as well defend the TSA if you want to defend against unlikely threats.

Okay.

Did you read my comment? "(unless they were threatening to do something and those threats were very likely to be carried out)."

But I do have a problem with imprisoning them if it's not damn likely that they were going to carry out the supposed plan.

All of my arguments were completely obliterated!

Well, damn. I guess I'm just a rapist then. Or whatever that "detrimental effect" is. Probably similar to video games making people murderers.

No, but you should have to! What if someone innocent (unlike you, you murderer) accidentally reads those books and gets offended? People have a right to not be offended, you know.

Please don't make it a hassle for people who want to view the content. Not for the children, and not for anyone else. This isn't necessary. We've lived without this, and somehow the world hasn't collapsed due to it yet.

This anti-sexuality nonsense has got to go. Even if a child does see the content, it will most likely not hurt them, anyway. I'd say ignorance is far more damaging.

Citing how the law is right now not isn't going to convince me of anything. If anything, it's just an appeal to law.

Your opinion. There have been cases where people have been misinterpreted by the government. Everyone involved knew it was a joke, but since the government doesn't know people, they took it seriously (although the fact it was a joke should have been obvious).

Having robotic, unsympathetic overlords as rulers can truly be harmful.

What are you talking about? After investigating (assuming it wasn't a completely obvious joke), if it is determined that they did not have the means to carry out the threat to begin with, a prison sentence likely won't be necessary.

For instance, if someone said that they were going to build a billion nuclear bombs in a single day and shoot them at the US, that would qualify as an obvious joke. At the very least, nothing to take seriously.

Lighten up.

Why are we seizing websites for copyright-related matters? This is petty, a waste of manpower, a waste of time, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and despite all of this, there is no gain from doing so.

The likelihood of them carrying out the threat must also be taken into account. For instance, we can't punish people who were simply emotional and/or joking and had no intent to carry out the threat anyway.

Someone is generally innocent until they do/try to do something. Otherwise it's just a thought crime (unless they were threatening to do something and those threats were very likely to be carried out).

I understand the desire to protect people, but not at the cost of individual rights. Everything else is just "for the children"/TSA mentality.

What are you, some sort of terrorist!?

Yes...?

Indeed. Government is a necessary evil. But that absolutely does not mean we should give them unlimited power. What power we do give them must be necessary and small. We must never let them engage in collective punishment (even if it's "for the children"), and we must never let them infringe upon our rights (again, even if it's "for the children").

Then again, I'm not really sure what your point was. But I've seen people who believe that because the government has the ability to do X, it should also have the ability to do Y (even if X and Y are quite different and one is a more oppressive power than the other), too.

The US is not and likely never will be Somalia just from limiting the government's power and not allowing it to violate our rights.

And that's exactly why giving the government too much power is a bad thing (note that I said "too much"). This has more to do with human nature and history. We've all seen just how much damage governments (and a complete lack of government, for that matter) can do.

I think it becomes a problem when the government is harassing entire groups of people (in this hypothetical case, parents) because of what a minority of them do.

I suspect it isn't much of a threat, since a grand majority of people aren't murderers/rapists/abusers.

Is it really just a libertarian pipe dream to want to be free from corrupt governments? Is it really just a libertarian pipe dream to accept that some casualties happen, but not everyone needs to be punished/harassed by the government because of it?

I don't think that's a very good analogy. First, much more is at risk when you allow people without degrees to be doctors. Second of all, I suspect it's far more difficult to teach yourself how to be a doctor than it is to teach yourself to be, for instance, a programmer (or something else). There is no easy way to get that experience without training.

Not if you take it to mean, "I'd much rather have it remain as it is [where just felons and minors under 18 can't vote] than start taking away other people's right to vote, too." In other words, I was simply saying that I didn't want the situation to get even worse than it is now (although it getting better would be perfectly fine).