Only if they’re against prominent liberals. Otherwise, it appears to be fine to urge murder, rape, mayhem, etc.
But it should be no more “free speech” than a written or spoken threat, both of which are taken seriously and usually constitute criminal acts.
This is the same as any other threat against a person’s life
and should be treated as such. At the very least it is evidence that he is mentally unstable.
What’s a Face Book?
No complaints about your two reporters’ home addresses being published everywhere on the internet because they published the home address of the Ferguson officer in their Rag of a paper?
Depends. If you are black, Obama/Holder have you covered. If you are a Tea Party person expect a knock on your door.
That depends.
Is it a white male issuing the threat? If so, then no, it is hate speech.
Us it a minority ‘community organizer’? If so, then yes, it is free speech.
All POLITICAL SPEECH is protected speech. Even the lies.
The above does not seem to fit the definition of “political”.
explicit threats, legally, no.
If you have to pay for your internet connection, that speech is not free.
Only Leftist government censors can determine free speech rights.
This article is about a case now before SCOTUS, but you have to read below the fold to find that out.
Free speech was never meant to cover such explicit threats of violence.
If they’re against George Bush, no. That is encouraged. If they’re hateful rants by a government-approved victim group, they’re OK.
Only if a normal person says something that a member of a victim group doesn’t like.