Feds drop case against man accused of posting Facebook threats to Trump

Sun-Sentinal ^ | January 19, 2017 | Paula McMahon

[SSS Two]

You are trying to fabricate a false and deadly "freedom" to indulge what is obviously an extremist libertarian streak in yourself.

I am fabricating nothing. I'm defending the #FirstAmendment using recent court case law.

The rest of your post seems to be an argument that we need to give up a little freedom for a little temporary safety. I reject that.

[nclaurel]

A threat goes beyond a political statement. You are scary.

[SSS Two]

A threat goes beyond a political statement. You are scary.

I'm only advocating for the #FirstAmendment protections articulated in Watts v. United States. I understand that you think that no "threat" can be a political statement. Please understand that your position necessarily restricts #FirstAmendment rights that currently exist. I'd argue it is scary for people to want to restrict Free Speech.

[DiogenesLamp]

I am fabricating nothing. I'm defending the #FirstAmendment using recent court case law.

You aren't defending anything. You are in fact doing the contrary of defending the first amendment. You are damaging it by trying to claim a scope of influence it never had.

Threats to kill the President were never protected anymore than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is just such calls for violence that have caused numerous left wing lunatics to actually kill people.

The rest of your post seems to be an argument that we need to give up a little freedom for a little temporary safety. I reject that.

Incorrect. The rest of my post is pointing out that you cannot posses your idea of "freedom" and exist in a civil society. Your idea of freedom can only exist for despots or in social vacuum.

Live on an Island and rant about killing the President, but inspire fools to commit such crimes in the larger society, and you need to go to jail.

[SSS Two]

You aren't defending anything. You are in fact doing the contrary of defending the first amendment. You are damaging it by trying to claim a scope of influence it never had.

Threats to kill the President were never protected anymore than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is just such calls for violence that have caused numerous left wing lunatics to actually kill people.

Please review Watts v. United States. Your understanding of the law is inaccurate.

[DiogenesLamp]

My understanding of the first amendment is better than that of the Liberal Judges who made that decision in 1969.

To quote Max Plank, "that's not even wrong."

[Gator113]

Well said.

[nclaurel]

I stand by my statement. Threatening to kill the President is not free speech. It is liberal chaos.

[SSS Two]

My understanding of the first amendment is better than that of the Liberal Judges who made that decision in 1969.

I see what's going on here. You're exhibiting cognitive dissonance. You know you should support Free Speech. After all, every freedom-loving person supports Free Speech, right? But there's conflict. You know that the law allows for speech that you disapprove of. So you need to engage in what psychologists call "dissonance reduction" in order to reconcile your "ideal" of Free Speech with your desire to restrict speech. Your dissonance reduction of choice is to deny information that conflicts with your preexisting beliefs. In this case, you deny that the Free Speech protections found in Watts v. United States are truly the law of the land. Therefore, when you advocate eliminating those protections, you're not really in opposition with Free Speech.

Compare your dissonance reduction with a person who wants a healthier diet and to limit high fat foods. He starts eating a doughnut. He knows that eating a doughnut is not a healthy choice, and this creates cognitive dissonance. So he simply denies that the doughnut is a high fat food. Presto! Cognitive dissonance reduced. Watts v. United States doesn't protect crude, offensive political hyperbole. Presto! Cognitive dissonance reduced!

[Oatka]

Falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is not protected Free Speech. (See: Schenck v. United States).
Yes, I knew that, but it is such a handy device to stress a point.

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.
Yes, that helped - again proven to me that half this country's problems are caused by these judges semantically tap-dancing to allow "crude threats", i.e. "and if they put a rifle in my hand it is the people that put the rifle in my hand, as symbolized by the President, who are my real enemy."
The protester identifies a specific target and the judge declares it "symbolism"?

Here are some others where that judge, no doubt, classify them as "crude threats" and mere "symbolism":

ALERT – Second Trump Advisor Survives ASSASSINATION Attempt. This is Terrifying.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3517355/posts

VIDEO: Public School Teacher Fires Water Pistol At Projection of Trump, Screams "Die!"
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3517537/posts

Crawford Central School Board member defends 'clean head shot' Trump posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3517497/posts

Allowing these people to shoot off their mouths with no fear of repercussion will only encourage others, and maybe one of them will say, "Hey, now THERE's an idea!"