2 ms·
In my home country (that I share with the US Marshalls) you have the constitutional right to express a desire for harm to come upon anyone or anything, regardle
by jaywalk 5y ago
In my home country (that I share with the US Marshalls) you have the constitutional right to express a desire for harm to come upon anyone or anything, regardless of whether it's a federal judge or not. It's worrying that a federal agency would do anything in regards to comments that are clearly protected by the constitution.
- rocqua 5y agoyou have the constitutional right to express a desire for harm to come upon anyone or anything Do you have a source for that beyond "the 1st ammendment"? This feels like the kind of thing that has an exception. I think "inciting violence" is not covered. Certainly, threats are illegal, not sure how veiled those threats need to be to circumvent that.
- lapsed_pacifist 5y agoIt's quite the other way around: threats must be very specific in order to not be protected speech in the United States. Saying 'let's burn this mother down' during a protest is protected speech, for instance. In general, the threat must be specific and imminent, such as 'let's go to that building right there and do $violence right now!' They have been mentioned several times in this thread, but you should consult Popehat's writings for in depth breakdowns of what is and is not protected speech.
- inglor_cz 5y agoThe doctrine is "imminent lawless action". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action Pointing at a person during riots and screaming "Kill that muthafucka now" would almost certainly cross the threshold. Organizing an unofficial Wannsee conference to plan a genocide of $UNDESIRED_GROUP into details would not, even though the entire event would be a hatefest.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]