3 ms·

About the terrorist threats, I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already ha

About the terrorist threats, I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? or does the immediate violence threat has to be something implicit within the published message. Btw, thanks, those examples are awesome.

cbd1984 12y ago
> I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? If they made a specific and credible threat to cause death, bodily harm, or serious property damage if someone published something, yes, I think that would qualify as an illegal terroristic threat under the law. http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Terrorist-Threat.htm http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal... Note that threatening to picket or boycott or otherwise protest isn't a terroristic threat. The threat has to be about something in the specific list I mentioned above.
- schoen 12y ago
  I think the parent commenter's question was whether it would be illegal to publish something that was the subject of a credible terrorist threat, not to make a credible terrorist threat. You addressed whether people are allowed to make threats (no) rather than whether the government can use the threats as a reason to prevent the thing that is the target of the threats (generally also no).
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    > I think the parent commenter's question was whether it would be illegal to publish something that was the subject of a credible terrorist threat, not to make a credible terrorist threat. Oh. Sorry. I guess I didn't even consider that, because it would be obvious to me: Yes, of course you can publish something that was the subject of a threat. That isn't even mildly controversial here; in fact, not publishing something because you were threatened would be seen as rank cowardice. Look at what happened to Sony for what was ultimately a brief delay in releasing The Interview. > You addressed whether people are allowed to make threats (no) rather than whether the government can use the threats as a reason to prevent the thing that is the target of the threats (generally also no). Right. Exactly.

cbd1984 12y ago

> I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? If they made a specific and credible threat to cause death, bodily harm, or serious property damage if someone published something, yes, I think that would qualify as an illegal terroristic threat under the law. http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Terrorist-Threat.htm http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal... Note that threatening to picket or boycott or otherwise protest isn't a terroristic threat. The threat has to be about something in the specific list I mentioned above.

schoen 12y ago
I think the parent commenter's question was whether it would be illegal to publish something that was the subject of a credible terrorist threat, not to make a credible terrorist threat. You addressed whether people are allowed to make threats (no) rather than whether the government can use the threats as a reason to prevent the thing that is the target of the threats (generally also no).
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > I think the parent commenter's question was whether it would be illegal to publish something that was the subject of a credible terrorist threat, not to make a credible terrorist threat. Oh. Sorry. I guess I didn't even consider that, because it would be obvious to me: Yes, of course you can publish something that was the subject of a threat. That isn't even mildly controversial here; in fact, not publishing something because you were threatened would be seen as rank cowardice. Look at what happened to Sony for what was ultimately a brief delay in releasing The Interview. > You addressed whether people are allowed to make threats (no) rather than whether the government can use the threats as a reason to prevent the thing that is the target of the threats (generally also no). Right. Exactly.