Probably

There was an interesting little story on the evening news. It concerned a man that has been sentenced to four years in jail for issuing threats. Without delving into a bunch of details basically he threatened his estranged wife/girlfriend. He did this on social media. He has now hired a lawyer to file an appeal. The lawyer is saying his client should be protected under the first amendment. Their position is that he said nothing that you don't hear in a Rap song on the radio everyday. He was just venting and his intent was not malicious. The appeal is going to be heard by the supreme court. The issue is freedom of speech vs the intent of that speech. The court is being asked to offer an opinion on intent ! A very slippery slope. Can anyone or any group of people really know the intent or the mind of another ? You must know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to satisfy the legal system we enjoy here in America. Can we convict on " probably ? "
I hesitate to rush to judgement, I don't have all the facts in this case. The thing is I don't really care all that much about the case, just the consequences. There should be consequences for our actions. I will say this, I am under the impression that this man's intent was to intimidate his ex. I believe he was hurt, emotionally, and was lashing out. Would he have carried out those threats ? Well that is where the probability factor comes in to the equation. Personally, I don't think so. I think if that was his intent he would have done so immediately following the breakup, probably.That is where the court enters the picture, at probably. Can we convict on probably ? Is that a preponderance of the evidence ? Probably. Is that beyond a shadow of a doubt ? You have to answer no. That is the problem here. The other person has a right to be protected against such an onslaught of malice. Do we have to wait until an action occurs to rule on the probability of it happening ? Hmmm, a bit of a sticky wicket eh ?
There is an entire field of science devoted to probability. Mathematicians calculating the probability of something happening. Is there a scientific formula that applies to human emotion ? I don't think so, although E harmony might disagree. If I own a gun what is the probability that I will shoot someone ? It is certainly greater than if I don't own one. If I threaten you with harm is the probability that I will harm you greater ? Probably, but not absolutely. So the question is, should I be punished for threatening you ? I do think I should be held accountable for my actions. Consequences should never be probably. It really is like raising a child. You can not leave room for probably. If you do this, the consequences are that. No guessing, no exceptions.
In this particular case I think we can all agree that his actions were inappropriate. Common sense dictates that. Four years in prison does seem a bit excessive, but as I said, I am not familiar with the case. Maybe there are other factors involved here. Whatever the situation, he was convicted on his actions, not on what he might have done, not on probably. Do you have the unequivocal right to say or write anything you like ? Is that the freedom of speech that is protected ? Yes, unless that speech or writing harms another. How to decide that is the central issue in this case. This case is especially relevant given today's politically correct attitude. Bullying is a hot topic right now. I can be held accountable for cyber-bullying. There are certain words or phrases that I can not say without incurring the wrath of the majority of others. Certain words or phrases being considered harmful. In fact, some may be labeled " hate crimes. " Hating is becoming illegal. Entire careers have been destroyed by saying these things. The fact of the matter is, we all judge on probably, to some extent. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. But will that hold up in court ? The supreme court is being asked for their opinion, what is yours ?