Congressman Steve Scalise (R) shot

[C-Mag]

"one down, 216 to go"

lol. That's cold... but constitutionally protected speech none the less. /shrugs

That sounds great, but it's completely wrong.
Threatening any Government Official in the US is prosecutable by a Felony. Has been since 1948, and the Government takes care of their own, so they've amended that law to keep up with technology. So emails are covered too.

I'm all for Free Speech, I'm not real thrilled about laws like these that elevate the government above average citizens, but it is the law.

The point was, to demonstrate that this attack did not tone down the violent rhetoric. IMO, the gal that said 1 down 216 to go shares the opinion of many mainstream Democrats.

[Smitty-48]

The media deserves protection, only, and only if they do their job, and aren't mouthpieces for any one party...

I don't recall that clause in the constitution...

Slander is not protected, nor is incite immediate violence or unlawful activity.

1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court ruled that only speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action"

Who has incited imminent lawless action? If you're gonna lay a charge, you can't lay a charge against "the media"; who you charging with incitement and for what?

[Smitty-48]

"one down, 216 to go"

lol. That's cold... but constitutionally protected speech none the less. /shrugs

That sounds great, but it's completely wrong.
Threatening any Government Official in the US is prosecutable by a Felony. Has been since 1948, and the Government takes care of their own, so they've amended that law to keep up with technology. So emails are covered too.

I'm all for Free Speech, I'm not real thrilled about laws like these that elevate the government above average citizens, but it is the law.

The point was, to demonstrate that this attack did not tone down the violent rhetoric. IMO, the gal that said 1 down 216 to go shares the opinion of many mainstream Democrats.

Didn't make any specific threats, didn't threaten anybody specifically, no specific threat of imminent lawless action; free speech.

[C-Mag]

@ GCF I bumped that thread with a post that summed up the situation.

Today, Lawmakers receive more threats
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lawma ... le/2626004

one threat to a New York congresswoman warned, "one down, 216 to go"

As Smitty said, 'that's rough, but not illegal'. Also, not an MHF post, which is what you were called upon to show.

Think for yourself........................ Damn, don't you think our government would have long ago protected themselves with special laws against the every day riff raff ?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

[Smitty-48]

@ GCF I bumped that thread with a post that summed up the situation.

Today, Lawmakers receive more threats
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lawma ... le/2626004

As Smitty said, 'that's rough, but not illegal'. Also, not an MHF post, which is what you were called upon to show.

Think for yourself........................ Damn, don't you think our government would have long ago protected themselves with special laws against the every day riff raff ?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

There's no specific threat to kidnap nor injure anyone, like, in America, you are free to say "these sumbithces gonna get what's coming to them and we gonna dance on their graves after" that's as American as apple pie and shooting people for taking socks off your wash line, Deo Vindice, learn to deal.

[C-Mag]

lol. That's cold... but constitutionally protected speech none the less. /shrugs

That sounds great, but it's completely wrong.
Threatening any Government Official in the US is prosecutable by a Felony. Has been since 1948, and the Government takes care of their own, so they've amended that law to keep up with technology. So emails are covered too.

I'm all for Free Speech, I'm not real thrilled about laws like these that elevate the government above average citizens, but it is the law.

The point was, to demonstrate that this attack did not tone down the violent rhetoric. IMO, the gal that said 1 down 216 to go shares the opinion of many mainstream Democrats.

Didn't make any specific threats, didn't threaten anybody specifically, no specific threat of imminent lawless action; free speech.

[Smitty-48]

Tell you what, soon as they cross into Canader, we'll have the Mounties round them up, but if you can't show a specific threat made, it's gonna be hard for the Crown to secure a conviction, I suppose would could just deep six them into an extrajudicial black hole out at the Maple Syrup Gulag, but would prolly have to invoke the War Measures Act and suspend the constitution to do it, and unless you're talking Bolshies trying to overthrow the Crown from the streets, we're not generally inclined to take it there, gimme an FLQ kidnapping people and blowing shit up; "just watch me", but short of that, I don't see much point.

[SuburbanFarmer]

So telling to see these 'beacons of virtue' clutching pearls and burning the Constitution when it suits them. Fucking Trailer Parliament all over this shit.

[Smitty-48]

Does seem to be an excessive amount of pearl clutching going on, "them sumbitches gonna get what's coming to them and we're gonna dance on their graves after" that ain't a specific threat of imminent lawless action, that's just sayun'.

[The Conservative]

I don't recall that clause in the constitution...

Slander is not protected, nor is incite immediate violence or unlawful activity.

1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court ruled that only speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action"

Who has incited imminent lawless action? If you're gonna lay a charge, you can't lay a charge against "the media"; who you charging with incitement and for what?

Fuck, where to start...