What evidence was there that she actually intended violence and wasn’t just spouting off in anger on the internet? Does anyone realistically think she planned on carrying any of this out? Are we now going to put people in prison for saying angry words on the internet? They are going way to far with this. How is this much different than the UK prosecuting people for saying politically incorrect things? If this is the direction the Republican party is going then I will be voting Libertarian from this point on out.
"Shoot XXXX on sight." Violent threat.
An insult is protected free speech, as it should be.
As is a comment that can be taken different ways.
Example: “The country would be better off without Trump.”
But this woman made a direct and unambiguous call to violence.
That crossed the line, hugely. She got what she deserved.
She doesn't need to intend violence. She used words that she knew or should have known could incite violence by others. Her intent is irrelevant.
>>What evidence was there that she actually intended violence and wasn’t just spouting off in anger on the internet? Does anyone realistically think she planned on carrying any of this out? Are we now going to put people in prison for saying angry words on the internet? They are going way to far with this. How is this much different than the UK prosecuting people for saying politically incorrect things? If this is the direction the Republican party is going then I will be voting Libertarian from this point on out.<<
Democrats mouthing death threats and threats of violence go first. The Libertarians come next.
Go back to DU.......PLEASE!
“Are we now going to put people in prison for saying angry words on the internet?”
She crossed the line.
Anyone unsure about where the line is should consult an attorney before they post a video threatening to kill someone.
We *should* be prosecuting people for making threats to the life of fellow Americans. That is the only way to restore the civil discourse we once had in the country, that has since been replaced with people shouting down opponents rather than debating them, using fire, mob thuggery and molotov cocktails at political protests, and doxxing each other for exercising their free speech rights.
Either that or we need to restore a right to challenge others who have gone over the line to a public duel.
Freedom of speech is not intended to protect people who make threats intended to shut down debate, it is to encourage people to debate and discuss matters rather than resort to violence and arson and intimidation. Threats to people’s lives are by definition anti-free speech whether you intend to carry them out, or just want to shut down others’ speech by making them fear you might attempt to. There is no reasonable excuse or need for anyone to make a threat to kill another citizen or to encourage others to do so, and letting people get away with it is an assault on our liberties not a respect for them.
Saying something politically incorrect is not the same thing as making a plain threat to kill others, so there is no equivalency here to the censorship used in Europe against people who have made no threats of any kind.
Yer kidding. Right?