3 ms·
At least in the US, credible death threats made with an intent to intimidate are not protected free speech (as the Supreme Court has ruled in the past).
by argonaut 12y ago
At least in the US, credible death threats made with an intent to intimidate are not protected free speech (as the Supreme Court has ruled in the past).
- waterlesscloud 12y agoWhich is why no new legislation is needed- it's already against the law. There's no need to give authorities more power when they already have all the power that's necessary.
- diminoten 12y ago(Article is from the UK, not the US, and it's about extending the penalty)
- waterlesscloud 12y agoThe UK authorities also have all the power that's needed as well. No new power is necessary.
- DanBC 12y ago> Which is why no new legislation is needed- it's already against the law. New laws guide behaviour. People don't wear seatbelts until you make it illegal to not do so. New laws make sure there are no gaps in the existing laws - laws applicable to public order or telecommunications may leave exploitable gaps.
- tim333 12y agoOddly enough reading the article there is no new anti-troll law. They are just changing the max penalty on a ten year old law. There does seem to be a new anti revenge porn clause being put in though.
- diminoten 12y agoYeah, I think this is a good standard. I agree that the proverbial, "yelling fire in a crowded theater" shouldn't be protected. I just think we should be super stingy about what falls into the "unprotected" category.