Free Speech

[Clodfobble]

Plus, for all they knew, he was a minor. If someone were really posting a comment like that genuinely, he would basically have to be. They did their jobs--they investigated, found out they were wrong, and released the guy an hour later.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They knew how to deal with the overpaid teacher union thugs. One shot at a time!

I'd say this was highly inflammatory, encouraging students to shoot their teachers.
But, doesn't rise to the yelling "fire" in a theater level, therefore is protected speech under the first amendment.

Some people, especially foreigners, don't understand that distinction or it's importance, saying it's just a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago. They say it doesn't apply today, it should be changed, updated, modified to fit the times.

No... it should not.

[ZenGum]

I'm also wondering what the original charge was.
Ok, things like inciting a riot, threatening violence, encouraging murder, these are rightfully crimes. But I cant make any of these crimes fit the text given.
I guess the police did the right thing in finding out who it was and if they were likely to commit a shooting. But I still don't see why or on what charge he was arrested.

Now for the compare-and-contrast example: a magistrate in Australia has allowed nine men (aged from their teens to 26) to walk free without so much as a conviction recorded against them, after gang-raping a ten-year-old girl - on the grounds that she "agreed" to sex.
There is an outcry, and the sentences will probably be appealed. I bloody hope so.