5 ms·

> We have freedom of the press and speech in the USA, which means in general you get to say whatever dumb thing you want. True threats, such as calling for som

> We have freedom of the press and speech in the USA, which means in general you get to say whatever dumb thing you want. True threats, such as calling for someone to be murdered, are not covered by the first amendment.

myrandomcomment 6y ago
Correct. If there is a belief that Bannon was not just being his normal blowhard jerk self I am sure the police would have had a chat with him. In the US, the Brandenburg v. Ohio case in 1969 limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In the case here with the UN, the Saudi government has been proven to be responsible for the planning and death of a dissident, which apply the logic above the threat was credible and the police should show up at their door. The issue is there is no "police" here expect the UN itself and they will do nothing because they are powerless.
- consumer451 6y ago
  > If there is a belief that Bannon was not just being his normal blowhard jerk self I am sure the police would have had a chat with him. Fauci has 24/7 protection from a security detail for himself and his family. Clearly this “blowhard” blew hard enough for the US Marshals to be worried. I am quite sure that it was never the concern that Bannon himself would actually commit the murder.
gpm 6y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I do not believe that advocating for someone to be murdered qualifies as a true threat, as long as the advocation is not likely to lead to imminent violence I believe it is in fact protected speech [1]. True threat's must convery an imminent prospect of execution [2] not an abstract teaching that it is a good idea (paraphrased from [1]). [1] https://sites.psu.edu/2civichofman/2016/04/17/advocacy-of-violence/ https://sites.psu.edu/2civichofman/2016/04/17/advocacy-of-vi... [2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats

myrandomcomment 6y ago

Correct. If there is a belief that Bannon was not just being his normal blowhard jerk self I am sure the police would have had a chat with him. In the US, the Brandenburg v. Ohio case in 1969 limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In the case here with the UN, the Saudi government has been proven to be responsible for the planning and death of a dissident, which apply the logic above the threat was credible and the police should show up at their door. The issue is there is no "police" here expect the UN itself and they will do nothing because they are powerless.

consumer451 6y ago
> If there is a belief that Bannon was not just being his normal blowhard jerk self I am sure the police would have had a chat with him. Fauci has 24/7 protection from a security detail for himself and his family. Clearly this “blowhard” blew hard enough for the US Marshals to be worried. I am quite sure that it was never the concern that Bannon himself would actually commit the murder.

gpm 6y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I do not believe that advocating for someone to be murdered qualifies as a true threat, as long as the advocation is not likely to lead to imminent violence I believe it is in fact protected speech [1]. True threat's must convery an imminent prospect of execution [2] not an abstract teaching that it is a good idea (paraphrased from [1]). [1] https://sites.psu.edu/2civichofman/2016/04/17/advocacy-of-violence/ https://sites.psu.edu/2civichofman/2016/04/17/advocacy-of-vi... [2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats