[s]YouTube stuff[/s] cancelled

[Montegriffo]

There are allowances for obvious hyperbole. He is not inciting violence, he is not actually threatening anyone, that's free speech.

Depends if the threat is actionable, I'd imagine. You'd have to ask Fife, but it is generally not generally a good idea to express those kinds of threats.

1. First, there has to be a specific federal or N.Y. criminal statute that would support prosecution. Federal -- is the old guy inciting anyone else to do something violent, or is he just talking about what he would do, given the opportunity. "If I had a gun, I'd wipe em all out," or "Give me a gun and I'll take care of em all." I don't see that he is trying to get anyone else to fuck the SJWs up, he's just saying what he would do if he had a chance. Maybe some of the later "making terroristic threats" statutes could fit, it would take a little research.

2. Second, is the First A. an absolute defense in this case? Check the Brandenburg test. "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." I doubt a jury would find this old guy was likely to produce an actual shooting by what he said, imminently or otherwise.

This old guy should have definitely chosen some other language to express what he was thinking, maybe something like "if I was still young enough, I'd take any and every one of you faggot motherfuckers on anywhere, anytime." But he's a 90+ year old veteran of the Pacific Theater, I'm willing to give him a little slack when he's confronted by worthless shitheads with nothing better to do than taunt him.

For midwit commie fucks to advocate for this old guy to be prosecuted, when he was clearly provoked by the limp-dicked pansies on the sidewalk of his fucking parade, is de rigueur for the mob-rule communist mentality I'm afraid.

I must have missed the bit where anyone (communist or not) was calling for him to be prosecuted, perhaps you could point it out for me.

[StCapps]

Depends if the threat is actionable, I'd imagine. You'd have to ask Fife, but it is generally not generally a good idea to express those kinds of threats.

Not generally a good idea, sure. But he wasn't threatening anyone, he was just using a figure of speech because he was pissed at the douche bag protestors is all. That is very obvious to anyone who isn't Montegriffo anyway.

At least one of those protesters was a veteran. This dickhead said he would have shot him if he'd had a gun. Whether he meant it or not is not the point, the point is that he doesn't think anyone has the right to protest against the President. That's the anti-constitutional thing here not a legal demonstration against the sitting President.

No, it means he didn't like the protest, not that no one is allowed to protest. As usual you are using your shitty mind reading skills, and it makes you look like an idiot.

[Montegriffo]

No one is arguing the protestors have no right to protest.

Stop being stupid.

The veteran was.

[StCapps]

No one is arguing the protestors have no right to protest.

Stop being stupid.

The veteran was.

No he wasn't. That is you putting words in his mouth with shitty mind reading. Not once did he say that, you just assume that's what he meant, because you don't like him and your only argument tactic is to strawman others arguments to make your own seem smarter by comparison, when they are really just stupid, hence needing a dumb argument as a foil for your dumb argument.

[Montegriffo]

Yeah right, 'cos nothing says I respect their right to protest like ''I'd wipe them all out if I had a gun''.

[StCapps]

Yeah right, 'cos nothing says I respect their right to protest like ''I'd wipe them all out if I had a gun''.

It's a figure of speech dude, he wouldn't actually do it, and saying that doesn't automatically mean you don't think they have a right to protest, it can easily just mean you don't like the protest. It's not like if he doesn't say they have a first amendment right to protest like morons, that means he can't possibly think that, that's not how it works.

Enough of your shitty mind reading skills. Sucking the protesters cocks is not the only sign that you approve of their right to protest, and getting mad at protesters is not proof you don't respect the first amendment.

[Fife]

I must have missed the bit where anyone (communist or not) was calling for him to be prosecuted, perhaps you could point it out for me.

I wasn't talking about your bits and pieces. I was answering a direct question not necessarily related to your joyful shitting on that old man's freedom to say what's on his mind. Not only does he have the right to say that he doesn't think other people should challenge his favored politician, but he also has the right to wish, out loud, that they all be shot, or worse. That's the constitution in action. Same as your right to wish that any non-approved speech be somehow declared "unconstitutional."

Perhaps you could shove it up your arse for me.

[Montegriffo]

Yeah right, 'cos nothing says I respect their right to protest like ''I'd wipe them all out if I had a gun''.

It's a figure of speech dude, he wouldn't actually do it, and saying that doesn't automatically mean you don't think they have a right to protest, it can easily just mean you don't like the protest. It's not like if he doesn't say they have a first amendment right to protest like morons, that means he can't possibly think that, that's not how it works.

Enough of your shitty mind reading skills. Sucking the protesters cocks is not the only sign that you approve of their right to protest, and getting mad at protesters is not proof you don't respect the first amendment.

So now you can read his mind and state that he wouldn't actually do it? All of which is beside the point. The point is he clearly does not think they should be allowed to protest against the President.
The very right to free speech he claimed to have fought for.

[DBTrek]

I wasn't talking about your bits and pieces. I was answering a direct question not necessarily related to your joyful shitting on that old man's freedom to say what's on his mind. Not only does he have the right to say that he doesn't think other people should challenge his favored politician, but he also has the right to wish, out loud, that they all be shot, or worse. That's the constitution in action. Same as your right to wish that any non-approved speech be somehow declared "unconstitutional."

Perhaps you could shove it up your arse for me.

Awwwwww snap, Monte! You done got the crispy treatment!

[StCapps]

Yeah right, 'cos nothing says I respect their right to protest like ''I'd wipe them all out if I had a gun''.

It's a figure of speech dude, he wouldn't actually do it, and saying that doesn't automatically mean you don't think they have a right to protest, it can easily just mean you don't like the protest. It's not like if he doesn't say they have a first amendment right to protest like morons, that means he can't possibly think that, that's not how it works.

Enough of your shitty mind reading skills. Sucking the protesters cocks is not the only sign that you approve of their right to protest, and getting mad at protesters is not proof you don't respect the first amendment.

So now you can read his mind and state that he wouldn't actually do it? All of which is beside the point. The point is he clearly does not think they should be allowed to protest against the President.
The very right to free speech he claimed to have fought for.

You don't have any idea what he's thinking, you are putting words in his mouth. If he meant what he said, he would have gone home, got his gun and come back and shot them, so clearly he meant something different, since he did not do that. Saying what he said does not imply that he thinks they have no constitutional right to protest, that is you making a strawman because he doesn't like the protest.