[driftdiver]

“Threatening POTUS is a crime.

Partially correct. “

partially? What part is incorrect? Making a threat against the POTUS is and should be a crime.

[OneWingedShark]

>Making a threat against the POTUS is and should be a crime.

Really? SHOULD it be a crime? Why should the President enjoy a separate level of legal protection than any general citizen?

Also isn’t “limited free speech,” like “limited free-will” an absurdity? If the item be free then it is unconstrained, and if it is constrained then it is not free.

If it is absurd to limit speech, then it is also absurd to limit it from being “passionate,” “abusive,” “derogatory,” or [even] “violent.” In simple terms, should it be illegal for someone to say [after being ripped-off, say] “If I could kill you I would, you worthless shit-bag bastard!”?

[cake_crumb]

He didn’t threaten the POTUS, he stated a wish, a fantasy.

[Psalm 144]

“Threatening POTUS is a crime. Partially correct. “ partially? What part is incorrect? Making a threat against the POTUS is and should be a crime. ******************** I think what we are beating around is the difference between a statement of vague fantasy satisfaction and a statement of specific intent. "I would like to " is a more nebulous thing than "I intend to ". The first can usually be defended, the second often cannot. Skimming the article headline as I initially did, it looked like a defensible statement. The full comment is nearly a signed confession perpetrate a crime, however unlikely the success might be.