4 ms·

USAian here: > Protests should be allowed They are. > destroying public property Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. > advocating violence or hate

by mwint 4y ago

USAian here: > Protests should be allowed They are. > destroying public property Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. > advocating violence or hate Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. You just can’t be arrested for “being rude”. You have to commit a crime. Protesting does not mean you’re immune to prosecution for non-free-speech crimes. What happened with the BLM riots was simply governments deciding, for one reason or another, not to stop the crimes being committed.

heavyset_go 4y ago
> > advocating violence or hate > Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. This is untrue. Immediate, direct, actionable threats are illegal, saying "I/we/you need to go hunt down and murder X now" can be construed as an actionable threat. Extolling the virtues of murder and opining about how nice it would be if someone finally hunted down and killed X is legal free speech. You can talk about how X needs to die all you want, but if you start making immediate, direct, actionable threats towards X, that crosses territory from free speech to illegal threats.
- Vecr 4y ago
  This is correct, I'm not sure why it's being down-voted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Eh, it's an ugly truth and my examples could have been less extreme. Various circuit courts have different tests for what constitutes a true threat versus legal free speech, some of which can be found here[1]. For example, here's the 2nd Circuit's opinion: > a true threat is “on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.” [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats

by mwint 4y ago

heavyset_go 4y ago

> > advocating violence or hate > Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. This is untrue. Immediate, direct, actionable threats are illegal, saying "I/we/you need to go hunt down and murder X now" can be construed as an actionable threat. Extolling the virtues of murder and opining about how nice it would be if someone finally hunted down and killed X is legal free speech. You can talk about how X needs to die all you want, but if you start making immediate, direct, actionable threats towards X, that crosses territory from free speech to illegal threats.

Vecr 4y ago
This is correct, I'm not sure why it's being down-voted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Eh, it's an ugly truth and my examples could have been less extreme. Various circuit courts have different tests for what constitutes a true threat versus legal free speech, some of which can be found here[1]. For example, here's the 2nd Circuit's opinion: > a true threat is “on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.” [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats