Do you have a cite for any of those people being prosecuted?
I assume you have the google. Many people were prosecuted.
Of the three articles posted, I do not see a single person prosecuted. You said many of them were. I canât find anything to prove that to be true.
Donât forget the Viking horn hats. I soiled four pairs of underwear that day, terrified of the insurrection going on at the Capitol.
Lol. I forgot about him. Dear lord! If that was an attempt to take over the government then Iâll be a democrat.
Imagine if they had seized control. Weâd all be eating organic food right now and wearing Viking horns
To add to this, the Washington Post criticized Ron Desantis for attacking both the Tampa Bay Rays and free speech. I fully expect them to similarly criticize the Virginia legislators for attacking the Washington Commanders and Jack Del Rioâs free speech.
(Picture sarcasm emoticon now.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/09/ron-desantis-tampa-bay-rays-free-speech/
UhhhâŚ
No it isnât.
It very much is protected speech. It has to be a credible threat before it is a violation of the 1st amendment. There was no credible threat or action to hang Penca. Donât go down the whackadoodle train of they were going to hang Pence on the shitty-built gallows that isnât even tall enough to hang someone.
It actually isnât 100% clear.
It is very muddled.
IMO, the âhang Mike Penceâ chants represent a True Threat.
Others can disagree, but if I was on a Jury, I would convict based on that.
It does not represent a true threat. They didnât have the ability or means to do it. A threat has to be credible to be a threat. Otherwise, it is just hyperbole as SCOTUS has said.
The gallow built was obviously a prop and not able to be used to hang a person. Only an idiot would think you could hang someone with that as it is poorly built, has no drop platform, and is not even the right height. It is a prop, nothing more.
I have an advocate of the 1st amendment even when I donât like the speech. Hang Mike Pence is protected speech. Now I do have less tolerance when people say attack the police because they often do. Nobody went after Mike Pence that day and tried to hang him. People do attack the police based on that rhetoric of ACAB.
I agree 100%, but the âhang Mike Penceâ chants could easily have led to violence of another type.
Because he was protected by Secret Service.
Once again, there is no evidence of that. Read the Scotus case. The man said he would shoot the president. That was found to be free speech because it was hyperbole. We need to be careful not to confuse hyperbole with real threats. Otherwise, free speech isnât free at all.
Had nothing to do with the secret service. Nobody was trying to hang mike pence. There is zero evidence that was a threat.
I did, that is why I said it wasnât clear.
There is no court recognized definition of âTrue Threatâ.
I agree 100%, and I also believe that âhang Mike Penceâ crossed that line.
As I said, this is my opinion, and I would stand by it if on a Jury.
They didnât define it in the case but we have defined it in law for many years. I keep citing the law to you. It has to be a credible threat. If I say I am going to shoot you but I have no gun, it isnât credible. The debate is whether the president has special protections that a normal person doesnât have. That makes the standards slightly different but it still has to be a credible threat.
Would never make it to a jury since nodody was arrested for it.
UmmmâŚ
You never actually cited the law.
I linked to two separate cites, one of them describing it as this;
âUnfortunately for those trying to measure their own remarks, setting out a precise definition for what constitutes a true threat has flummoxed even the U.S. Supreme Court. The result is a division of opinion in federal and state courts across the country.â
SCOTUS has not made it clear.
If they had hung Pence in effigy as a metaphor, nowhere near him, maybe you could call it free speech, though they might still get a visit from the Secret Service. (Ask Ted Nugent or Kathy Griffin). When you break through doors and windows to enter a building where you are not authorized to be, and where Pence is, fighting with cops along the way, and chanting âHang Mike Pence,â thatâs a threat in no way protected.
Threatening the president of the United States - Wikipedia
Courts have held that a person is guilty of the offense if certain criteria are met. Specifically, the person must intentionally make a threat in a context, and under such circumstances, that a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by persons hearing or reading it as a serious expression of an intention to harm the president. The statement must also not be the result of mistake, duress or coercion.[62][63][64][65][66][67] A true threat is a serious threat and not words uttered as a mere political argument, idle talk, or jest.[68] The standard definition of a true threat does not require actual subjective intent to carry out the threat.[69]
A defendantâs statement that if they got the chance they would harm the president is a threat; merely because a threat has been conditional upon the ability of the defendant to carry it out does not render it any less of a threat.[13] It has been ruled that taken together, envelopes containing ambiguous messages, white powder, and cigarette butts that were mailed to the president after the 9/11 anthrax outbreaks conveyed a threatening message.[70] The sending of non-toxic white powder alone to the president has been deemed to be a threat.[71] A broad statement that the president must âsee truthâ and âuphold Constitutionâ or else the letter writer will put a bullet in his head count as not expressly conditional as it does not indicate what events or circumstances will prevent the threat from being carried out.[72] However, the statement âif I got hold of President Wilson, I would shoot himâ was not an indictable offense because the conditional threat was ambiguous as to whether it was an expression of present or past intent.[73]
The posting of a paper in a public place with a statement that it would be an acceptable sacrifice to God to kill an unjust president was ruled not to be in violation of the statute.[74] The statute does not penalize imagining, wishing, or hoping that the act of killing the president will be committed by someone else.[75] Conversely, the mailing of letters containing the words âkill Reaganâ and depicting the presidentâs bleeding head impaled on a stake was considered a serious threat.[76] An oral threat against the president unheard by anyone does not constitute a threat denounced by statute.[14]
Since other statutes make it a crime to assault or to attempt to kill the president, some question has arisen as to whether it is necessary to have a statute banning threats. As the Georgetown Law Journal notes, âIt can be argued that the punishment of an attempt against the life of the president is not sufficient; by the time all the elements of an attempt have come into existence the risk to the president becomes too great. On the other hand, the punishment of conduct short of an attempt runs the risk of violating the established principle that intent alone is not punishable ⌠While ordinarily mere preparation to commit an offense is not punishable, an exception may perhaps be justified by the seriousness of the consequences of an executed threat on the presidentâs life.â[15]
IMO, the âhang Mike Penceâ morons fall into this category.
They didnât have the means or the opportunity to harm Pence. They didnât have anything to hang him with. Now I will clarify myself, had they said we are going to shoot Pence and had guns, I would see that as a threat or if they said we are going to beat pence and they had clubs, that would be a threat.
Saying youâre going to hang someone is rife with political discourse. That is a political statement since they didnât have the means to hang him nor took any steps to hang him.
Because he was taken away by the Secret Service.
True, but given the opportunity they may have used other means to harm him, I am not hung up on the word âhangâ.