[R] Egregious trolling

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Sounds like they should be tried, convicted if the evidence proves their guilt, then they should be executed if convicted. I see no reason to be squeamish about executing psychopathic youth.

This is pretty explicitly crossing the line. No one should EVER advocate for the murder, including legally-sanctioned, of children under the age of 18. We're talking about 14- and 16-year-old minors.

I think the usual distinction between calling for the death penalty and advocating for mob killings should be suspended in this extreme instance.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Not really, I'm advocating capital punishment after a fair trial. That is advocacy of capital punishment, not trolling. This is a brutal crime where someone was burned alive, not typical stupid acts by juveniles.

Someone disagreeing with you and having a controversial opinion on an issue is not trolling, and that's what this is. The post was not designed to rile people up or troll the site, nor was it advocating that someone die due to being in an arbitrary category. What I saw was a grotesque murder, so surely one can advocate for capital punishment. It's not like my post was advocating torture porn or something disgusting and unconstitutional like that.

[Giovenith]

Because the user took great pains to make it clear that they meant execution in the context of a legal conviction, I'm going to say not actionable.

However, The Reformed American Republic, it should be noted that execution of minors has been ruled unconstitutional in the United States since 2005. Your post could have potentially been construed as advocating illegal activity had you not been so specific in a way that makes it obvious that you were unaware of this fact. Please try to be more careful next time about when you play the death card and do a little bit of research to make you sure don't run afoul of that line.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Thanks Geo. Yes, I was unaware of the unconstitutionality of it. I will follow your advice. Regardless, even if I was aware, "advocating illegal activity" seems like a bit of a stretch that could ban advocacy of capital punishment in jurisdictions that don't currently have it, despite belief in humane forms of capital punishment being in the realm of acceptable debate.

[Giovenith]

Thanks Geo. Yes, I was unaware of the unconstitutionality of it. I will follow your advice. Regardless, even if I was aware, "advocating illegal activity" seems like a bit of a stretch that could ban advocacy of capital punishment in jurisdictions that don't currently have it, despite belief in humane forms of capital punishment being in the realm of acceptable debate.

It would be a stretch, hence why we didn't rule that way. But it's still worth keeping in mind. Better to be safe than sorry.