Magnatone CEO, Ted Kornblum calls for the assassination of President Trump.

Truth Bombers ^ | 30 January 2017 | Truth Bombers on Twitter

[DiogenesLamp]

Stating a wish, in hopes that someone else will fulfill it, is coming very close to the line of incitement. (Or maybe it’s over the line. I’m not a lawyer.)

I would treat all such incidents as over the line, ensnarl the bastards in an unpleasant legal defense, and let them deal with the consequences of opening their mouths to threaten or induce a threat against the president.

We can debate legalities, but the practical need is to hammer down on these threats before someone acts on these inducements.

[SSS Two]

ensnarl the bastards in an unpleasant legal defense, and let them deal with the consequences of opening their mouths

Not exactly a pro-1st Amendment sentiment, now is it? Look for ways to expand Free Speech rather than ways to restrict it.

#FreeSpeech
#FirstAmendment

[DiogenesLamp]

I have no interest in your specious libertarian arguments.

[SSS Two]

It's okay. I know that you're not angry with me. You're angry at yourself. You know you should support Free Speech, but you have an authoritarian streak that wants to punish people for what they say (ensnarl them in an expensive legal defense) even though you know the courts have determined this very kind of speech to be fully protected by the 1st Amendment. It has to be difficult to know what's right (support of Free Speech) while at the same time wanting to punish Free Speech. That internal conflict is what's causing you to act out.

#FirstAmendment

[DiogenesLamp]

Courts have determined abortion is a right. That is all any rational person needs to say about the competence of the courts.

[SSS Two]

Courts have determined abortion is a right. That is all any rational person needs to say about the competence of the courts.

Courts can be wrong. That is not in dispute.

See? I know that I should protect innocent life. That's why I oppose Roe v. Wade. There is no Constitutional basis for abortion, and protecting innocent life is not in conflict with my belief system. I have no internal conflict there.

On the other hand, you know you should support Free Speech. It is the right thing to do. In matters of Free Speech, the courts have generally gotten it right (exception: Citizens United v. FEC). Because supporting Free Speech has a Constitutional basis and is not in conflict with my belief system, I have no problem supporting Bagdasarian while opposing Citizens United. Meanwhile, the internal conflict caused by knowing you should support Free Speech, but opposing Free Speech protections found in Bagdasarian causes you to lash out.

[DiogenesLamp]

Courts can be wrong. That is not in dispute.

They are incorrect in asserting that "freedom of speech" extends to making veiled threats against the president.

It does not.