And throughout the 1960s and 1970s. My recollection from American History is that they were doing everything they could to let criminals get away with criminal behavior.
Crime started uptrending in 1974.
Posted on 01/24/2017 1:49:50 PM PST by SSS Two
He’s a keyboard commando. He’s all for others threatening to kill. But when called on to make those same threats himself - He runs off.
Oh Jeez...He looks bat shit crazy to me in the Charlie Mason tradition! His ass should be locked up for that stare alone!
Falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is not protected Free Speech. (See: Schenck v. United States).
Crude political hyperbole is not a knowing and willful threat against the President of the United States. (See: Watts v. United States). Hope that clears it up for you.
Straight off the DUmp...that's the dictated way to spell it for the primitive morons.
Skinner would have it no other way.
Sleazy, sleazy site.
It appears most people on this site would like to imprison this clown for something he said that is fully protected by the #FirstAmendment.
Hmmm. IBTZ? (Obviously not directed toward you.)
Wasn't the court filled mostly with Liberal idiots in 1969?
Wasn’t the court filled mostly with Liberal idiots in 1969?..I believe you are correct.
Don't know / Don't Care ... I'm okay with it as long as the Court upholds the #FirstAmendment
The purpose of the first amendment is to allow people to criticize governmental officials without fear of them using their powers of office to enact revenge upon the speakers. It was a rejection of the common abuse of power that English authorities engaged in with people who criticized them.
It's scope and intent was never to permit threats of violence directed at members of the government. That is a bridge too far to claim first amendment protection, and I don't care that a 1969 Liberal court enshrined their stupidity into legal precedent.
Even in that decision they acknowledge that threatening the President is illegal, they just didn't think that what Watts said met the level of seriousness necessary to constitute a violation of the law.
Given the kooks we have nowadays, I think all such interpretations of "intent" should err on the side of caution. The United States Republic will not suffer any great loss of freedom if a strict interpretation of laws against threatening the Presidency are enforced.
So what you’re saying is that you think our #FirstAmendment rights are too robust in 2017, and you think they should be constrained by the more narrow definition you’ve outlined above?
And throughout the 1960s and 1970s. My recollection from American History is that they were doing everything they could to let criminals get away with criminal behavior.
Crime started uptrending in 1974.
I’m curious what happened to those that did same to Obama. These assassination threats to Trump are out of control and need to send message it’s not alright.
What I am saying is that no one ever had the right to threaten the life of a government official. It never was a right.
We modern folk are too accustomed to paying heed to the Liberal crap that has been turned out by the Liberal courts since Roosevelt. Much of it is just garbage. Garbage with official sanction from the "judiciary", but garbage none the less.
Political hyperbole was ruled to be Free Speech.
It appears to me that you’re arguing that we’ve got too many protections for Freedom of Speech going around in 2017, and that you think some of them should be stripped away.
We can hope.
It appears to me that people added on a bunch of fake "freedoms" that never existed.
I have little doubt that had anyone threatened to shoot George Washington in 1790, he would have been immediately tossed in prison. Of course George Washington was a major bad-ass, so it is just as likely that George Washington would have simply challenged him to a duel and killed him.
Jackson did in fact do this for lesser offenses than that.
Look for ways to expand our #FirstAmendment rights, not ways to restrict them.
There is a reason they call it the "ninth circus." That is the single largest collection of kookbat liberal judges in the nation.
They are the most overturned circuit in the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.