Posted on 11/01/2025 5:33:27 AM PDT by Libloather
The First Amendment won out this week in a court case over a man who repeatedly called for President Donald Trump’s assassination and openly fantasized about his violent demise.
A jury acquitted the man, Peter Stinson, of one charge of soliciting a crime of violence, raising questions about when speech is protected by the Constitution and when it becomes incriminating.
A former longtime Coast Guard officer, Stinson called for someone to "take the shot" in reference to Trump, according to court papers. "Realistically the only solution is violence," Stinson wrote.
Stinson said he "would twist the knife after sliding it into [Trump’s] fatty flesh" and that he "would be willing to pitch in" for a hitman contract.
"He wants us dead. I can say the same thing about him," Stinson wrote in another post during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A witness for the defense, Professor Jen Golbeck of the University of Maryland, said people "rooting for Trump to die online" is common.
"On one hand, I would not encourage anyone to post those thoughts on social media," Golbeck said, according to the Washington Post. "On the other hand, I can’t count the number of people who I saw post similar things. ... It’s a very common sentiment. There’s social media accounts dedicated to tracking whether Trump has died."
Brennen VanderVeen, program counsel with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said that one issue with the charges in Stinson’s case was that it was not clear whom Stinson was soliciting to carry out the crime.
"Solicitation is when it’s directly tied to the crime. So, if he contacts an actual hit man and tries to arrange some sort of hit contract, that’s solicitation," VanderVeen told Fox News Digital. "Without more … that probably does not meet the elements...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So does this set a precedent, or will hizzoner be told to pound sand?
Because if it is a precedent, then I have a thing or two I’d like to say…
Only when its directed at republicans. Whole nuther matter if its against a rat...
Would seem so. Apparently there is no justice available in Blue states. AD the court-martial.
He is accused of sending threats against Obama and three others via "interstate and foreign commerce email and telephone communications," the indictment says. The other individuals are all from Williston.
Ian Patrick Stewart's trial was reported first as being in October, now pushed to November.
This case has very little to do with free speech. He was tried in Virginia, and more than likely had a jury of Trump haters.
Rejoice. The jury has confirmed it. We are not all equal. We are better than they are.
“The First Amendment won out this week in a court case over a man who repeatedly called for President Donald Trump’s assassination and openly fantasized about his violent demise”
So now I guess it’s OK to yell “Fire” in a crowded venue now.
Yelling fire in a movie theater is not illegal.
How about just going online everywhere and suggesting violence for this guy, the one who bought the judge for this acquittal? Lie, lie, lie about what he is until some DNC nutcase goes for him.
Wanna bet what happens to you?
The First Amendment won out this week“
I don’t think Ashli would say that had this been obongo.
Yup. See #9.
When I was in the Coast Guard we had some rough boys who flattened bars and acted like well, boys. We would have left this guy to fight all comers all by himself. I remember a Warrant Engineman that got this treatment somewhere in Puerto Rico circa 1970, perhaps Ponce.
“I can’t count the number of people who I saw post similar things.”
The witness left off: “...including several jurors here today.”
...and it's also now okay to urge violence against judges and jurors...goose, gander and all...
1. Any news about how the jury was selected?
2. Did the judge instruct them that jurors cannot decide legal issues, such as the permissible scope of free speech?
So, as long as I post "Wanted - Dead or Alive" for anyone without naming a specific contractor, I can call for executions and not face charges...
...sounds like this Peter Stinson and the jurors might feel differently if it was their name and face on the wanted posters.
So... Jen Golbeck of the University of Maryland has enlightened us that the "others do it too" makes something not a crime.
Good to know that murderers, rapists, traffickers, drug dealers, thieves, embezzlers, robbers, bribers, racketeers, burglars, traitors, etc. are all not guilty of their crimes because their crimes "are common".
This twit, Jennifer Golbeck, who doesn't have a degree in law (doctorate of philosophy in computer science, masters and baccalaureate in computer science, an baccalaureate in economics, and a masters in psychology), needs to go look up the ad hominem term 'Tu quoque' (you do it also).
After that, she can put her studies in psychology to work addressing her Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and reflect on how easy it was for the anti-Trump leftists to find her to defend the indefensible in this case.
But the NSA can.
...including how many of their own operatives posted similar things.
Let's see if she can count how many people call for her death online.
“Juries” are a bigger joke than the Dipstick Court skanks. They all hate the President of the United State because Kings like King Barry Sotero and King Hakeem Skyhook tell them to along with the “media” gas bags.
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.