Court Rules: 'Repugnant' Online Discussions Aren't Thoughtcrime

Lets say that an enemy of the people of the world says some stuff on the Internet about harming people.

Can authorities be alerted and can they than take proactive action?

Is public safety of primary concern?

Apparently not!

This is the big question in light of recent activities of people who have left trails of their anticipated activities on the Internet before acting out on what they have indicated on line.

 Here is one case that has tied the authorities up from being able to do anything until something actually transpires in the real world scenario...

This ruling is not good for the public when we think about the potential harm to the public.

Our government realizes this ruling is not good for public safety but a district court judge has more power and authority...

 The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in favor of former NYPD officer Gilberto Valle — the so-called "cannibal cop." In 2012, Valle was fired and arrested for going online and talking about his fantasies, which included kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, and cannibalism. 

He was later convicted in a jury trial. 

A district court judge overturned the conviction, but the government appealed, hoping to make it stick.

 The Appeals Court has now affirmed Valle's acquittal. 

In the ruling (PDF), the court notes:

 "We are loathe to give the government the power to punish us for our thoughts and not our actions. 

That includes the power to criminalize an individual's expression of sexual fantasies, no matter how perverse or disturbing.

 Fantasizing about committing a crime, even a crime of violence against a real person whom you know, is not a crime." 

The court also addressed the government's questionable efforts to use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to increase the severity of Valle's punishment:

 "While the Government might promise that it would not prosecute an individual for checking Facebook at work, we are not at liberty to take prosecutors at their word in such matters."

What would you have ruled in this case?

How many more people must suffer before anything can be done about "Red Flag" repugnant discussions discovered on the Internet that could possibly lead to public harm?

Normal balanced people do not express harming others.

John 13:34-35(NASB)

³⁴ A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 

³⁵ By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Jesus Christ