3 ms·

If I said, in the US, "Peter Thiel is a woman-hating monster and the country would be better if he and every politician on his payroll was swinging from a lampp

If I said, in the US, "Peter Thiel is a woman-hating monster and the country would be better if he and every politician on his payroll was swinging from a lamppost Mussolini style" it would be difficult to make any case that I was doing anything not covered by first amendment protections. If I'm a visitor to the country and say the same thing having signed an affirmation that I'm not going to advocate for violent overthrow of the US government it's not a first amendment case, it's a lying-on-immigration-forms case and out I do.

kortilla 4y ago
I don’t think death threats are covered by the first amendment.
- notch656c 4y ago
  This is not legal advice but I think they are. See Brandenburg v Ohio. "Brandenburg was convicted of violating a criminal law that prohibited speech that advocates crime, sabotage, violence, and other similar acts after he spoke at a KKK rally. The Supreme Court found that the law infringed on Brandenburg's First Amendment rights, and created the imminent lawless action test. In order for speech to fall out of First Amendment protection, it must 1) be directed at producing imminent lawless action and 2) it is likely to produce such action." I think there is an exception for ones made against certain public officials, which IMO are likely unconstitutional, but no one is really excited about challenging those. https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/brandenburg-v-ohio https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/brandenburg-v-ohio
- rodgerd 4y ago
  Where's the death threat? That paragraph is not much different from what you'll find from self-described stocastic terrorist LibsofTikTok. And, you know, I certainly agree that this kind of speech is terrible! But just as the US first amendment has protected, for example, supplying lists of doctors providing women with healthcare, showing crosshairs over them, putting red crosses over ones who have been murdered, and so on, the US has decided over the years that you have to issue very direct threats, or very clear instructions, to be held liable for speech that could incite harm.
- Kamq 4y ago
  For the purposes of the first amendment, this isn't a death threat, it's the expression of an opinion. Even advocating for violence is constitutionally protected. A credible threat would, generally consist of specific actions that the person would have means to carry out.

kortilla 4y ago

I don’t think death threats are covered by the first amendment.

notch656c 4y ago
This is not legal advice but I think they are. See Brandenburg v Ohio. "Brandenburg was convicted of violating a criminal law that prohibited speech that advocates crime, sabotage, violence, and other similar acts after he spoke at a KKK rally. The Supreme Court found that the law infringed on Brandenburg's First Amendment rights, and created the imminent lawless action test. In order for speech to fall out of First Amendment protection, it must 1) be directed at producing imminent lawless action and 2) it is likely to produce such action." I think there is an exception for ones made against certain public officials, which IMO are likely unconstitutional, but no one is really excited about challenging those. https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/brandenburg-v-ohio https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/brandenburg-v-ohio
rodgerd 4y ago
Where's the death threat? That paragraph is not much different from what you'll find from self-described stocastic terrorist LibsofTikTok. And, you know, I certainly agree that this kind of speech is terrible! But just as the US first amendment has protected, for example, supplying lists of doctors providing women with healthcare, showing crosshairs over them, putting red crosses over ones who have been murdered, and so on, the US has decided over the years that you have to issue very direct threats, or very clear instructions, to be held liable for speech that could incite harm.
Kamq 4y ago
For the purposes of the first amendment, this isn't a death threat, it's the expression of an opinion. Even advocating for violence is constitutionally protected. A credible threat would, generally consist of specific actions that the person would have means to carry out.